Don't you know who I am..

It seems to me in photography (and perhaps lots of other things too) there is a constant repetitiveness regarding photographers. Mention the 60's and its Bailey, Vietnam and its Don Mucullen for example. Then there's the pioneers, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and perhaps Irving Penn. Names everyone knows, and of course today it is no different with the same names mentioned and shown in the same magazines and in the same galleries. Of course these chappies have there place, but what bothers me is how much work is on par with, and very often better than these repeaters but never gets as much, if any press at all. Take for instance Stephen Shore. I love his work and of course without him colour photography like mine may not exists. But he wasn't the only one doing colour in the 70's. Adam Bartos and John Humble are just two photographers with equal clout image wise, but sadly few people are as familiar with these names as with Shore the mighty pioneering, silver haired photographic genius that is.
I have always found it interesting how a photographer can climb the social ladder. Sometimes they are pioneers like Weston and Adams, sometimes they are simply the best at what they do, and sometimes there work is far from worthy but the right people have placed them there.

Its a weighty topic and too vast for me to blog here. Just thought I would throw it out there.