Here we have a profoundly wise essay by an experienced and successful man, about where photography is, where it's going, and what the point is. I'd like to think he's simply repeating things I say a lot, but in reality there is overlap but it is by no means complete. Go with Kirk, not me, where we differ.
Here we have the hapless Anthony Thurston, who works with or possibly for Chris Gampat, representing the modern up and coming enthusiastic youngster Kirk mentions. I'd like to forgive the inaccurate headline, which describes as a "Complete College-Level Education" what is clearly at most one college level course, but I am a pedantic jerk, and also spent 9 years taking approximately 72 courses all up in order to get my College-Level Education (admittedly, I stuck with it a little past the Bachelor's degree).
Anyways, Thurston, exemplifies the "photography is really mainly about mastering techniques and tools" philosophy. You can look at any number of several thousand web sites (at least) for this same theme. Thurston is just the victim who happened to stroll through my gunsights at the wrong time today. Sorry, Tony.
Honestly, the accompanying pictures pretty much summarize the situation. A beautiful, expressive, idiosyncratic portrait of Renée Zellweger versus a muddy picture of a camera and a tablet on.. I think someone's pants rumpled up on a bed. Technique aside, I am not sure what the hell Thurston was going for here. You can do this at home without even putting your pants on perhaps?
Interestingly, Milnor is going off on almost the same topic himself over on shifter. There's some sort of stellar alignment. I feel like I ought to take a run at it myself, by why accentuate my stupidity by going head to head with people smarter and wiser than I? I'm going to wait until the clever guys leave for the bar, and then start ranting, I think.