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

[...] that can'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's say, Instagram or selfies in photoland.

It'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'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]