on photo fags and life

i never told anyone what i think about (some) photographers, but i will do so now. my opinion has no scientific back-up, but it has a logic that convinced me. and even less than that was reason enough to write about stuff in a very confident manner.

since photography is an art, that theoretically makes photographers artists. and that's completely wrong. there, i said it. i think photographers should not consider themselves artists. at least not all of them. at least not nowadays.

i know what you might say: her camera broke so the grapes turned sour. first of all, grapes don't turn sour because of cameras and, second of all - no, no! i feel photographers can call themselves artists if they have other (verified) means of creative expression as well. if all they do is peek through a visor and wait and wait for the right shot or even click incessantly (maybe something cool will come out - like i do) - all that on their super amazing cameras then what they are is lucky bastards with a lot of patience and advanced technology.
yes. even a panda can do it.

and a question that has been bugging me is why are there so many famous photographers and no famous camera men? it's the same thing. the squinting, the peeking through a visor, the sitting/standing behind a large lens, the usage of technology etc. ok, its almost the same thing. so why?!

the whole post could've just started from meeting too many self-absorbed talentless people who need to cover it. sometimes you have to cover it, or else you're a pervert, but in this case, let it show. :)