I'm saying your interested in quarreling and I'm not -- ask yourself if the world changes and new things come into being and what that implies.
As you said, believe what you wish to believe.
But the all purpose of my posts wasn't quarelling but suggesting that discussing about "real landscape photography" is quite pointless: nobody will become a better photographer by complaining about "fake landscape photography", "real landscape photography", "copycat photography", "artist vs photographer" and so on.
Like amolitor said, we are overwhelmed by so much photographs that almost everything you can think of has already been photographed.
Even Mr. Reichmann made some photos very similar to Ernst Haas's, and yet nobody is dismissing Reichmann's photos as copycats.
So, if I can repeat myself: does it really make sense to talk about "real landscape photography" when nobody can't tell "real landscape photography" from "non-real landscape photography" on criteria like aesthetic, originality, message, intention, technical qualities or any other criteria?
By the way, I can name some photographers that make photographs like no one did before.
But I'm not sure that "Voyager", "Curiosity", "Hubble" or "Rosetta" would qualify as photographer, didn't they?