But there's an underlying problem with photography, should one be expecting clear reasoning for motivation: I don't believe that many of us really know why we shoot something when we do; I think it's all about flying by the seat of our pants and recognizing the possibility of something lurking within the frame that caught our eye.
Needless to say, this has become far more bearable in the digital age, if only for the fact that once we have a card... But personally speaking, I feel obliged to say, yet again, that Terence Donovan was right: the most difficult part of photography for the amateur is having a reason to make/take (use the one that brings comfort) a photograph. Having spent my working life doing it for clients, it was far easier a task. One simply did one's best to catch what the client thought he was after. Sure, technique develops quickly, or you die, but that is of little help in the amateur condition. You can be as skilled as you like, but if your heart and mind remain empty, you are sunk. And that's why I recognize the amateur's dilemma so clearly: out to pasture, I find myself right slap bang in the middle of it myself now. Knowing how to do something well is of little help when you don't really know what it is you want to do, other than knowing that you don't want to stop doing what you could do well.
Russ is right about 'tourist shots' of course, but Russ has (as have I) also been around cameras for most of his long life. The problem with long memory is that one increasingly becomes aware that there ain't much new under that old Sun. Trust me, knowing that what you are doing has been done to death, and better than you can do it too, is a bit daunting, not to say discouraging.
Perhaps we should just celebrate the innocence of the neophyte. Maybe he/she's the hope for the industry.
Rob