Over and over again, in the more technical forums discussions always turn to Image Quality, or how important it is. But more over, in the less technical forums, those which have more topics about photographers, or photography; photographers with little apparent concern for Image Quality are discussed, and admired. With the only exception of the Australian wide angle photographer, virtually every other photographer discussed expresses very little technical skill, or little regard for image quality itself. They command fame and fortune, admiration even. What separates these photographers is not their camera, their lenses, the quality of the images. But invariable it is the context, the subject, is the photographer living or dead(and how did he or she died), or the collection which gives the photographs and the photographer value. He took photos of farmers. She took a bunch of photos of places you can't get into. She took a bunch of photos and then killed herself. He took photos of Picasso. She took street photos, and was a hoarder and a maid. He took photos of the Rolling Stones, Beatles, and other famous people in the 60s. She took photos of herself satirizing movies, and made the most expensive photograph to date. He takes other peoples' photos and draws on them with a Sharpie(and then gets sued), but gets lots of money when he doesn't get sued. How on one had, photographers stress image quality. Then on the other hand, photographers with little to no inherent image quality derive fame and fortune from them despite being all around crappy; and more importantly discussion amongst other photographers? Why does everyone seem to like crappy photos, if Image Quality is really important?