Reflection on "The Photographer's Eye"

I thought the article was interesting; a sort of crash course through the history of photography. Especially with the idea that there is nothing to unlearn, rather, it is something to help one grow not only as a medium but as a person if taken seriously enough. I took a photo class in high school and one of the girls, Yoshi, would put her whole heart and soul into one photo. I remember a photo that she took of her sister just sitting next to a pool, but with all the care, effort, and time she put into it, it brought out a side of her sister that even she didn't know existed. I like how photography can sort of spread like a disease, once you get your first good experience with it, you can't get enough of it. I also thought it was interesting how Szarkowski explained that although scientists and painters discovered it, it was anyone but the like who furthered it.
One criticism I had towards the article was the idea of things considered artistic; who is to decide what is and what is not art? One man's trash is another man's treasure. Just because a picture of someone holding a flag means nothing to you does not mean that to someone else it doesn't represent everything they stand for. I do, however, enjoy the quote "there is no pause, why should there be? For art may err but nature cannot miss".
When Szarkowski explained that photographers shot anything, without thinking, it made me realize how much freedom one has with a camera, just point, click , and you're done. But with painting, you have to take the time to really dedicate yourself to the artwork. I think that is why many photographers are not considered "real artists"; they don't take the time to put their whole soul and dedication into the work. Another thing I think may be lost with photography is that a photograph is what is really there, that someone can hold a photo up to its own subject and see almost an exact replica, whereas with painting and drawing, you get the artist's rendition of the subject; you get what the artist sees; how they see it, and how they want others to see it. Then again, now with photo shop and things of the like, it may as well be the same.
I also liked how he talked about how people of the 19Th century believed what they saw without question, as though just because it were an image, then it had to be true (apparently not much has changed). This again made me think of the use of photo alterations. I would honestly like to see a picture of someone for how ugly they really are every once in a while, not just assume it.
When discussing detail, he explained that the subject may have never before been seen correctly before it had been photographed, but at the same time may have been filled with undiscoveries; I think it is better to discover something for yourself rather than to discover it through someone else's eyes. In fact, upon all of his explanations of the key points of photography I kept thinking "the mess-ups are always worth the most".
I really enjoyed the point about the decisive moment and how once you think you have something, it may be the exact opposite of whats expected. I think this is a weak point in my own photographic adventures, I feel as if when I find the Decisive Moment, it turns out to be two moments too late. I also feel focus is a weak point, I can't decide on what I want the main focus to be on.
Also in my adventures, I would always be stuck in between taking too many pictures during a trip or vacation, or I would not take enough. I would either take the picture because I wanted to remember it, then forget about what the picture was of in the first place; rendering it meaningless, or I would choose to pass up the opportunity of a lifetime for an amazing picture simply because I didn't want to bother with a camera and enjoy the experience for myself for just a little bit longer.