Originally posted by gokenin see if you think of it that way then any shot taken of say JFKs assasination are only snapshots. Any picture of the walks of MLK are nothing but snapshots since they were not done for artistic purposes. Many of our most famous historical pictures would fall under the definition of snapshot and according to wheatfields definition and many others who feel as he does they are not thought of as real photography.
I am not saying that every picture taken by people will be important but I do not understand why some people look down on the average person taking pictures of everyday life as unworthy of the classification as photography.
And here I would have thought that any picture of an American President or a hero of the people would be of a wider interest than a picture of someone's kid covered in chocolate cake just by dint of who they were.
Thanks for correcting me on that regarding the importance of your cultural and political icons.
Apparently I hold them in higher regard than you do.
Or, did you just misunderstand the part about "generally referring" to somehow being an absolute?
<edit>
As an aside, and specifically referring to the pictures of JFK's assassination, sometimes the blind luck of being in the right place at the right time will elevate what is a simple and relatively thoughtless photograph to something of more general interest does happen from time to time.
Go to a parade to snap a picture of the President for your photo album is a snapshot, take that picture at the same time someone snuffs him with a hunting rifle and you have a news photos.
</edit>