I don’t think it can be said that one type of photograph is more “valuable” than any other, snapshots and art photos both have their own merits. They can each produce photos that embody the qualities that a good picture is supposed to represent, or they can both end up falling flat. The difference is not more than a stylistic choice. On the one hand, art photographs most often take into account of the formal qualities of a picture, value and equilibrium and similar concepts, so they are the closest to most people classically consider “art.” Yet at the same time, as the video points out, they do not so much convey the true sense of the world, as Jacques-Henri Lartigue’s spur-of-the-moment pictures did. It seems to present a similar situation as what has happened in all forms of art. Post-modernism in painting, pop culture music, even films to the performing arts.

When you stop to consider for a moment, it becomes clear that Lartigue’s style was more revolutionary than people at the time could have predicted. In modern day, most everyone has a camera, and the vast majority of pictures taken are not even remotely concerned with artistic value, just with preserving a memory or sight. When out on vacation, most people don’t stop to consider the formal properties of a work of art before taking a picture of the scenery, they take it exactly as they see it, as a snapshot. Of course, one could argue that these pictures are less valuable because they never go on to receive critical acclaim. Whereas modern-day art photographers like Gregory Crewdson, who spend hours and millions of dollars setting up shots, become famous worldwide for their work. At the same time, however, there is a business to be made with snapshots- commercial reporting, where things happen at a moment’s notice, and if the photographers worried constantly about perfect composition, they would not catch anything. And beyond this, a large part of a photo’s value is what each person who sees it thinks of it, which is really a matter of personal taste.