Fearghas McKay wrote: > > On 29 Mar 2009, at 19:48, Dave Crossland wrote: > >> Photography did in portrait painters. Same story, different century. > > It did ? > > There really are no portrait painters left? > > I think the effect of photography was that portraiture as a market > increased, the affluent could still ( and did ) get a painter but the > masses could either take their own or get a professional in who only > needed 10 mins in the shopping centre temporary studio.
Yes the history of publication in the livejournal era is a good parallel to the history of portraiture in the box brownie era. What is true in the case of both portraiture and publishing is that the barriers to entry were greatly lowered. The market *expands* rather than being wiped out. What is destroyed is the *exclusivity* of the profession, not the value of the professionals. I think that professional investigative journalism and professional news photography will continue to command a premium because they represent scarce, valuable, differentiating skills. If I want to really have something exponentially different to wrap adverts around I want Edison Carter or Magnum, not some random happy slapper. ;-) - Rob.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
