One reason so much critical writing — especially that produced by academics — is so stilted and impenetrable is that its authors simply haven’t been writing often enough, and therefore haven’t learned to hear and modulate the sound of their own written expression. […] As a side effect of this, students come to believe that such strained language is expected of them, and mimic it dutifully, exacerbating the already considerable problems I and others face in teaching them to express their ideas clearly. […] I think we still need — today no less than in 1979, and indeed even more so — to also swell the ranks of writers capable of articulating the crucial issues in photography in an accessible, non-jargonized, engaging and unpedantic language, in order to bring them before an intelligent general audience.

A.D. Coleman, from a talk given in 1999 [link to PDF]

Ken Schles has written two posts over on A.D. Coleman’s blog entitled “Infinite Stupidity.” Schles’ point is that there is a lack of “intelligent conversation” about photography on the internet, and he is correct, although that is hardly a new situation. The only problem with saying this directly on the internet is that you’re unlikely to change anyone’s opinion. An online audience probably needs to be pushed, not led.

We can all agree that the internet needs writing about photography in an “accessible, non-jargonized, engaging and unpedantic language.” It’s easy enough to talk that talk, but let’s not forget the gauntlet that Daniel Blight laid down for us: “the middle-ground you and A.D. Coleman want to occupy doesn’t exist.” Who’s going to create it?