After reading "Photography's Discursive Spaces," I was incredibly frustrated. The author's use of  comparisons between photography and painting and scientific versus aesthetic made it difficult for me to see her point of view. I think that the act of comparison within the art world is a huge problem. Comparison seems to open the door for the potential to make the assumption that all art is on the same level for every person and therefore a comparison between photography and painting is no different than a comparison between architecture and music. I understand that Kraus was trying to explain how certain "types" of art create different reactions and can provide different information, but I didn't agree with some of her thoughts. In Kraus' comparison of the lithograph and the photograph, she made it seem that the lithograph was less and art form than photography simply because the image was more detailed or more informative. I don't think that just because an image can present factual or scientific information that it should lose its "rank" among other pieces of artwork. It was just difficult for me to understand this way of looking at photography. I think maybe I was influenced by my personal passion for the art, and so I felt like some of the reading was an attack on the status of photography as a notable art form.