I think that their is a distinction (at times subtle) between participating in a dialog of the structural characteristics of a relavent critical mass within a media at any given time and creating declarations which seem more interested in policing the boundaries of a media. The later becomes problematic given the apparent need for art, commercial or otherwise, to challenge boundary as part of its historical evolution.
Photography, as a particular media, has had a long history of grappling with the notion of ‘truth’ or ‘the real’. Even photography embracing less manipulation, widely perceived as more than less ‘straight’, has been questioned in terms of it potential to present reality – it is largely regarded, within the widest swath of critical dialog, a construction.
Within the history of the medium, the tensions and slippages of edge have been ever present. Group f/64 is often cited as an movement in support of ‘pure’ photography. [as an artist and educator, I believe self-imposed restriction(s) can be very helpful in exploring development.] However, presenting this group as practitioners of ‘straight’ process is belied by, at times very elaborate, enlarger-based manipulation. And this constitutes the foundation of current arguments claiming a degree of hypocrisy in declaring digital processing as less real than what preceded it.
Started out doing photography at the age of 6 using an uncle's old 1940 kodak brownie box camera. At 15 years of age, I decided to buy my very own 1975 Praktica SLR camera. I now shoot with a Nikon D850. I do unpaid TFP and commercial paid work.