It's presented in a very uncritical way adn you're right it's pretty elitist. There was this photographer on last night, he was taking (completely set up) photos illustrating newpaper stories, and basing the composition on famous paintings of yore. Hardly what you'd call original or groundbreaking, sounded more like art student standard but this is going to be the first exhibition of photos in the National Gallery. I thought it was utter rubbish and the photos weren't even very good as far as I could tell. Anyway perhaps I'm being a snob. But it was just the way it was presented, as though he was a genius and this was a brand new idea.

At least the other week when someone was extolling the virtues of (American female photographer I've forgotten the name of) they had Germaine Greer whinging bitterly about how awful they were.

Sorry for the thread subversion. Perhaps we need more argument on the merits of sites. 'Oh I think the Rollrights are simply marvellous' 'Oh no they're just a pile of stones in a field'. Maybe not.