I have grown accustomed to the fact that top landscape and nature photographers, particularly those who photograph relatively pristine landscapes, are not recognized or respected by the East Coast dominated "big A" Art world. This is despite the fact that many of them have arguably had a greater impact on society and the art of photography than the "fine art" photographers who tend to be exhibited in museums of modern art. As hard as it may be to believe, I would argue that the ultimate reason for Ansel Adams' acceptance in the "Art" world is because he made a deliberate effort to schmooze influential curators. This strikes me as a pathetic paradigm, that holds the art in lower regard than the connections of the artist. What are your thoughts on this phenomenon?