http://www.americansuburbx.com/2010/08/danny-lyon-end-of-age-of-photography.html I think he's right about tats and young morons and upgrades and the seductive beauty of the instant erasability of images (tho "sharing" online makes them eternally non-biodegradable). I've admired Lyon's deep-immersion documentary work (not street) since "Toward A Social Landscape" in the late Sixties, when I bought the heavily abused Heritage/Eastman House book that's on my desk: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Photographers-Toward-Social-Landscape/dp/B000Q5VEMM And I applaud his success with print sales...he reports some wonderful property, including a fishing camp. What I take from Lyons essay is mostly this: The factor that distinguishes throw-away photography from significant photography is the fine enlargement, or print publication, maybe even the garish 4X6 prints, cared-enough-about to be assembled in albums (bets on the future of the family or memorial to broken hearts). Not chimping or glowing monitors. In addition to being potentially eternal, digital storage and display inherently implies nothingness...it won't even return to dust. What do you think?