I'm not saying people no longer enjoy taking photographs. I'm saying that photography is no longer an art. Like I enjoy making a good cup of coffee in the morning. I grind the beans, use a Chemex, measure the temperature, etc. It's taken a long time to master. But, ultimately, my cup of coffee isn't fundamentally different than any other cup of coffee. It tastes slightly better. Making coffee in the morning is a hobby, not an art. And the same thing goes for photography. It's a fun hobby, but no one would really care if you stopped doing it. Viewers would get a different photo from somewhere else. Most people don't greatly prefer your photography over the photography of others. Photographs are completely fungible for the most part. There's no room left for artistry. Low-skill photographs are good enough as to be completely equivalent with high-skill equivalents for most intents and purposes.
I've tried to find the most charitable interpretation of this comment, and the only thing I can currently find is that appreciating photography just isn't your thing and that's ok. But generalizing your personal preferences to the general case is just fundamentally disconnected from reality and ignores the vibrant communities of photographers and people who appreciate the photos they take.
Your comment as a whole claims that I do not exist. It claims that the people I follow do not exist, and the people who follow me do not exist. It claims that collectively we have no good reasons to follow each other.
Since none of this is true, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you do not understand why people value photography, or follow other photographers. That is also fine - you're not obligated do do any of those things, but again, that does not generalize to the conclusion you've drawn.
> It's a fun hobby, but no one would really care if you stopped doing it
This is just incorrect.
The last time I took a break from shooting and sharing, I had people reaching out asking if I was ok. When photographers I follow stop shooting, I care, and their communities care. Again this feels like a projection of your personal stance/tastes, but that simply doesn't generalize.
People still care about photography and following other photographers for a myriad of reasons. Photography is associated with a diverse set of communities, each with its own interests. Some topical, some geographical, some vocational.
> Photographs are completely fungible for the most part. There's no room left for artistry. Low-skill photographs are good enough as to be completely equivalent with high-skill equivalents for most intents and purposes.
You seem to be concluding that technical "quality" i.e. the visual quality of the captured frame is what primarily makes a good photograph.
Lighting, composition, perspective, leading lines, interesting subject, etc. are all far more important than the gear one is using, and none of these factors are magically solved by equipment that allows "low-skill" shots. There's a reason people spend money on wedding photographers in an era where everyone attending the wedding also holds a decent camera. And the same reason that drives people to hire a pro drives people to seek out and follow photographers who create excellent photos.
And while I get that this is not your cup of tea, there are plenty of us who actually like this kind of tea quite a lot.
