Talk:Vernacular photography

message: Should we not rename to Amateur photography per WP:COMMONAME? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: "Amateur photographer" shouldn't redirect to vernacular photography, and amateur photography is different than vernacular photography. Amateur photographers do everything professional photographers do and may even sell their photos, it's just not as their main profession. Vernacular photographers take photos of their children, their dogs, or their friends etc. The snapshot aesthetic also has nothing to do with amateur photography. Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amateur photography is not vernacular photography 

message: , thank you for your work on this. The article is, I should guess, better than it was before.
I have to guess, because I'm not given the evidence with which I can judge. (I could of course go looking for the evidence myself, but I plead laziness.)
Here's a particularly conspicuous example:  This is a major claim. Who says it, and where?
I'm very underinformed about this area, and perhaps this is one reason why the books I first think of are The Book of Shadows, The Art of the American Snapshot, The Three Graces: Snapshots of Twentieth-Century Women, Women in Trees, and Amateur (Lifshitz). -- Hoary (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, . A major prod in the section below: it's an amicable prod; I hope that it's accepted in the spirit intended. No, I don't recommend a general booklist. And in retrospect I wonder why I listed those books, other than in an effort to get myself thinking. But once I did start thinking, I thought of Party Photographer (attributed by Arjan de Nooy to the fictional Pep Jansen), and the subgenre of humorously repurposed vernacular photography. But then it occurred to me that (i) perhaps Party Photographer has less in common with a pile of photos one might pick up in a flea-market (if very lucky) than with Elisabeth Tonnard's In This Dark Wood, which repurposes what I suppose might be called "vernacular commercial photography", and (ii) perhaps all the vernacular photography that's presented as such is more or less repurposed. So now I'm thoroughly confused. Over to you (or others) to sort it all out! -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: The article now tells us that the term:
:was originally defined in 2000 by the art historian Geoffrey Batchen as [...]
Arguably, Batchen was the first to define it in such and such a way, but Google Books quickly reveals that the term had been used earlier. See in particular George Abbott White, "Vernacular Photography: FSA Images of Depression Leisure," Studies in Visual Communication 9 (1983), 53–75 (and available here, without any paywall). And this isn't a term that White uses casually: see in particular the lengthy first endnote to his paper, but also the body of the paper. -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that White went on to coauthor a relevant book that sounds interesting. -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Yes, good. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not a discursive dictionary; and therefore an article should normally be about a concept rather than a term. It's quite normal for a concept to be commonly named XYZ, but also given other names, and for this same term XYZ also to be used for other purposes; however, it helps if we can also briefly comment on the meanings that we don't intend, all in an effort to reduce the risk of confusion. -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the term

message: I've reverted your removal of the maintenance templates I added, . There are still plenty of unsourced and unattributed statements and opinions in the article, such as "The idea was ahead of its time and received little attention", "The key is its marginalized and overlooked status", "This formulation apparently excludes both professional and fine-art photography and thus resembles the Museum of Modern Art's first definition", etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, . I've addressed those points and much more. I'd like to remove the templates, but please advise. Imagebeau (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your efforts, . The article is certainly improved and I think it's almost ready for the templates to be removed. My one remaining concern is that you have statements such as "Current thinking about vernacular photography was anticipated as early as 1964 by John Szarkowski..." and "In 2000, the art historian Geoffrey Batchen touched off the current wave of interest...", referenced only to Szarkowski and Batchen themselves. Such statements need secondary sources, to support the claims being made about those authors (that they anticipated and touched off, etc.). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the additional references, . I've now removed the templates. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, ! Imagebeau (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintenance templates