Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

> photography was mostly a factor of how much film and equipment one can afford,

Bullshit.




Quite an eloquent rebuttal. Such a knee jerk response really makes me reconsider the truth of the statement.

-----


I'm sorry, but the original claim dismissed an entire field of art by claiming that it boiled down to amount of wealth. I thought of writing something longer – perhaps an elegiac about the typical disparagement of what one does not understand, or a list of parallel examples that would show the stupidity of the argument (“computer programming was mostly a factor of how much CPU one could afford.”), but then I decided that it was so self-evidently absurd that it would be a waste of breath to do more than simply point it out as bullshit.

-----


the original claim dismissed an entire field of art by claiming that it boiled down to amount of wealth I can imagine that, say in the seventies, both camera's and film were a lot more expensive than nowadays(relatively). As practice makes perfect, really getting into photography, wouldn't be an option for all people then, because it would be too expensive a hobby.

It may have been a pretty weird blanket statement, but there may also have been a hidden context that makes it a reasonable statement.

-----




Applications are open for YC Winter 2016

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: