This relates to the debate here about the difference between "artsy" photographers like Friedlander and those who choose instead to take photos worth looking at. Here's the link: Commentary by John Stossel: You Call That Art? It's not specific to photography, but art in general. They did an experiment, mixing the works of famous abstract artists with things painted by 4-year-olds, elephants, etc, and asking various groups of people to identify the "real" art vs the kiddy art. It turns out that the kiddy art actually did better with the general public than the works of the masters. Artists also could not tell them all apart. Even an art historian, presumably familiar with the styles of these famous artists, mistook one of the paintings by small children for the work of a master. Here's a quote from the story: One artist, Victor Acevedo, described one of the children's pieces as "a competent execution of abstract expressionism which was first made famous by de Kooning and Jackson Pollock and others. So it's emulating that style and it's a school of art." At least one artist was more grounded. Says the article: An artist who calls himself Flash Light told me, "The function of art is to make rich people feel more important." This really parallels the conflicting opinions about photography that I've seen on this site.