I am one of the guilty posters on photo.net. Yes, I have some nice, postcard-y scenics in my portfolio. As a gallery owner said to me recently, while signing me up for a show (!), "Postcards sell." I also have a few interesting, non-conventional shots, but those are not a well-rated by the reviewers at the site. So what?
The fact is, most of the "real" world loves beautiful pictures. Scenics and nudes/babe shots come out first in this category, with old people a close second <g>. Now it is arguable that either of the following is true. A) The majority of people do not have a developed artistic sensitivity, which must be nourished like the taste for fine wine. Because of this, they prefer the merely pretty to works of true artistic merit. The Emperor is bloody starkers. Success in the "fine art" world is dependent on how well one masters its gibberish.
Q: "What is the difference between a commercial photographer and a fine art photographer?"
A: "The commercial photog sets up his camera carefully, paying attention to all the fine details of composition, meters precisely, pulls the darkslide, and makes the exposure. The fine art person sets up his camera carefully, paying attention to all the fine details of composition, meters precisely, pulls the darkslide, kicks the tripod and makes the exposure."
By the same token, the commercial guy might say, "Look, the yahoos buy this crap. I just crank it out."[/font]