>>2914705Henri Cartier Bresson studied literature and painting, practiced both. That doesn't make pic related a novel or a painting.
I realize that I am engaging in what can be described as a bit of no-true-scotsman, but I think it very necessary for understanding Gursky's works. To that end, I'm defining "photographer" to be someone who sets out intending to end up with a photograph. Gursky doesn't set out to end up with a photograph. I will admit if you use the more general idea of a photographer as being someone taking photographs, yes, by all means, he is one; however, that puts the wrong set of expectations and context to Gursky's works. I posit that the standards by which his pieces should be judged and interpreted are necessarily different from those who do set out to create an artistic photograph (obviously, there are nigh universal considerations of aesthetics and influence that apply to basically any work, and I'm referring to when one drills down). For example, the discussions of say subversions of verisimilitude are very different discussions when you consider the works as examples of photography versus digital media. This begs the question of the importance of the distinction, but I think both the history of photography in general and especially in the modern age frames this distinction as very important.
