Originally posted by Uluru Only two reasons that allowed that to happen were:
a. that photography is ruled by everyday mob, or our common ignorance, which can't see the aesthetic difference between the output of a certain glass plus sensor combination.
b. current economy, that does favour cheap and small electronic gadgets produced in billions
So it is good enough, but it is not the art — it is only a convenience and a fantasy that allow everyday John and Jane dream they can become a big artist one day.
Yet the definition of art is by default seeking the unique and hard to reach heights, and open up new horizons — not to dwell in common plains.
See for example this article by
Ashwin Rao, Chasing Light in the Palouse with the Pentax 645D. Many photograph posted there, even scaled down to fit the screen clearly illustrate they cannot be done with an APS-C sensor and its lens. For example this image below, go on and repeat all its characteristics, nuances and dimensions of space with the K5. Even the FF camera with sweat to come close.
You see, it is same in arts. If you can't see the difference between the JMW Turner's masterpiece and a sheet done by local competent watercolour dabbler, we can't go on forward and have a quality discussion
about details that matter.
This final point of yours goes to the main issue with Photography (in that it does not require an understanding of form to actually make an image) and it is that point that allows people without Art Education to think they can buy into the manufacture of Art at the press of a button. This same issue is prevalent in the Music Industry right now and has been since the advent of digital sequencing and computer involvement (80's onward). I've been playing guitar professionally for 40 years and I have had some strange conversations with DJ's in that time where they talk about themselves as players. As an highly accomplished musician I find that offensive but I also believe it stems from a similar type of relationship people are now developing with digital cameras, Instagram being the biggest example where people become "Preset Artists" followed by Photoshop for those who like digging in deeper.
In art clubs generally, rules and regulations regarding the craft aspects of a medium are raised up to a level of importance that allows a generally accepted measurement process to be used to grade one's success within the group at becoming what the club members generally perceive to be an "Artist". This usually has nothing to do with "Art" per se as what is more generally considered as "good art" does not rely on a practitioner being a slave of formulas to achieve an artistic end. Artists tend to be more concerned with the tearing down of aesthetic, philosophical and cultural boundaries which bind and cripple us intellectually and which prevent us from really "seeing". Visual communication does not have to be rational, linear or logical, it does not have to tell a story, the main subject of a WOA usually being the WOA itself - as an object to be considered independent of function and utility and not necessarily for some internal element of the work. This is the aspect of art that many people don't appreciate, reject outright, find trivial and/or criticize.
If people were interested in becoming an artist more than a craft related photographer I believe they would find a more rewarding and on-going relationship with their work and life.
The following article brings up a few points to consider. I gleaned this link from this forum but cannot locate the OP. Thanks to the poster it was a good read.
The Visual Science Lab / Kirk Tuck: Has the bubble burst? Is that why camera sales in N. America are down by 43%?