>>2884209Roger Scruton made a similar argument (think of Sontag as a fluffy french writer and Scruton as a strict, more scientific practitioner). Scruton's big argument is that the photographer can't isolate and control how the referent appears, and thus isn't a representation of the mind, but of things themselves (therefore photographs are aesthetically pointless - they're just a window). He thinks that all the superfluous detail of the real world is distracting.
But the problem with this is that by using a shit lens and a wide aperture, you can get rid of that additional detail
honestly if you want good writing on photography you're gounna struggle. Even Barthes wrote some total horse shit amongst his ideas about death and what makes a photograph "special" next to other snapshots
The best writing is usually historical documentation a-la stephen bull
