I felt that the three pieces presented a somewhat skewed idea of the history of photography.
If you read this piece you'd perhaps get the idea that Stieglitz, Camera Work, and 219 spurred a brief burst of interest in photography as Art and then it was basically a desert until the 1970s when, at last, photography began to be accepted as a genuine Art, or something.
This is just a variation on the most exhausted of canards, that photography struggles and struggles to be accepted blah blah blah. It's basically never been true.
What is true, and always has been, is that there's a great deal of non Art photography and photographers, so there is an appearance that the establishment isn't paying much attention to photography.
If you insisted on lumping graphic design, commercial illustration, house painting, and fine art painting in under one label you'd originally get the impression that the establishment doesn't pay much attention to graphicists.
But that would be ridiculous.