This is the complex thing about photography: on their own, photographs are meaningless. How you use them and what you do with them is what creates their impact ("meaning").

BUT, technically speaking, different types of prints for a picture *are* different interpretations. [...] https://twitter.com/rodrigoalcocer/status/1265845988176117760">https://twitter.com/rodrigoal...

[...] that can& #39;t be compared easily -- even when ignoring the vast differences between books, pictures on a wall, or pictures on your social-media feed.

One of the major problems of contemporary criticism is the ignoring of this basic fact. [...]

[...] Hence the often ludicrously simplistic read and misinterpretation of, let& #39;s say, Instagram or selfies in photoland.

It& #39;s important to realize that this is just an extension of critics not understanding the role of context. [...]

[...] And of a denial of critics of their own insularity and privilege.

/end

Hence [OMG, I just said "/end", and here I am] the inane focus on how well books are printed, say.

This adding of an unnecessary fetish only adds to obfuscate the critic& #39;s task at hand: to make sense of whats being presented [...]

[...] and not to be a cheerleader for the Steidl crowd who tends to mistake tons of ink for good pictures/printing/meaning.

/end [no really, I mean it this time]