First, in order to define something as amorphous as an "artist," you're going to have to do better than quote from Wikipedia. The definition that I implicitly gave was someone who understands the history of their medium and the people who practice it. Rarely, if ever, do I see any acknowledgment in forums like this one of photography's artists and its histories. Instead, there seems to be an infatuation with technology. This infatuation overvalues expensive equipment, and it assumes that the quality of someone's work is a function of their "pro" devices. It's ironic that the idea of a "pro," commercial, photographer was at one time practically an epithet that distinguished quack portrait makers from fine artists.
The history of this technological infatuation is actually rather interesting. About twenty years after photography's public invention, the medium went from being a specialized interest of the elite to a widely commercialized practice that replaced miniature portrait painters. The result was that everyone could have a carte de vista and almost anyone could take one. There became growing concerns among the fraternal brotherhood of photographers that anybody could take a portrait, no matter how poor the quality, and there were various lawsuits at the time about whether or not someone's likeness had been sufficiently captured. This is when you see a wide proliferation of various Photography periodicals--some much in the spirit of a forum like this one. These periodicals tried to create a professional discourse among photographers by discussing new technologies and methods. At the same time, they also implicitly regulated the kinds of photographs that were morally acceptable and appropriate. Numerous periodicals tried to put the proliferation of spirit photography, which was popular at the time, in disrepute.
So, when I see photographs like those posted here, I think about this history. As a photographer, I know how god damned frustrating it is to have people critique your images without even trying to understand the project and its ambitions beyond simply whether or not the image is slightly overexposed or if maybe there should have been another lighting source. These are all fine technical suggestions, but let's not pretend it's an adequate critique. If you're going to critique an image, you need to address the content of that image as well as the form. In the best cases, you're able to explain how the two relate to each other. So, what was this photographer trying to do, and how might he better accomplish it? How are these images working, and what do they represent? You assume that these should look a different way because you're judging them by a certain standard you have presupposed but not disclosed. Photography is not an objective medium nor are its critics.
