From an interview with Adam Bartos:

On cliches:

However, the choice of subject matter — which is what we’re talking about here — doesn’t determine the content of a photograph or what it looks like, so you can probably turn anything into a cliché, and the reverse.

Exactly. Subject matter is important, but not the only thing, and subject matter does not dictate the treatment and interpretation.

On the change in the photography scene and the impact of the Internet:

I think that in one way the Internet and electronic photography are making people more sophisticated about image-making because they are doing so much more of it, and there’s no technical challenge to making a picture that “looks good.” But then, as PL di Corcia said, even more “people think photography is a foreign language they can speak” and so there’s a kind of emphasis, also enabled by electronics, on making pictures that are heavy on production value, size, weirdness, etc. etc. to distinguish themselves in the ever growing art market. What worries me is that the audience for photography may lose the capacity to make distinctions about what was formerly appreciated as a circumspect medium — although, to be honest, I’m not sure that’s happening.

Lots of people are unsure about the impact of the technology and the democratization of the tools and the display medium. Has technology reduced the need for an “eye” and for the thoughtful interpretation of concepts, subject matter, beyond just trickery? Have we lost the appreciation for simple grandeur? Not yet, but once the other 50% of the population has a camera I’m a bit worried.

Believe me, this debate is not over. Flickr et. al. is not the end-game. More posts on this to come.

For many interviews with photographers and a great eye for photographers and their work, Jorg Colberg’s Conscientious is a must-read.