In her essay, "Photography's Discursive Spaces," Kraus claims that " this constitution of the work of art as a representation of its own space of exhibition is in fact what we know as the history of modernism."  What does she mean?  What is the "space of exhibition" and how does a work of art (in this case, landscape photography or painting) represent that space?

About O'Sullivan's photo she asks a crucial question about the construction of art and art history.  Isn't defining (and thus viewing and considering) his photograph as "art" an ahistorical perspective?  Isn't it anachronistic?  And in going back to defining his photograph as art thus photography itself becomes art. 

Flatness is key here (and will be in modern art generally).  The flattened perspective signals an aesthetic break with realism, thus calling attention to the image as art rather than nature. This is the "analytic" perspective. But what does Kraus point to as problematic?  When we consider the context of the image and not just the image itself, what scuttles the notion of a flattened, analytic perspective in O'Sullivan's photos?

So instead of landscape, which "composes an image of geographic order," Kraus proposes we consider the "view," the space of an autonomous Art and its idealized, specialized History, which is constituted by aesthetic discourse.

What does she mean? What definitions does she pull apart (landscape, view, art, history, artist, etc.)?  Why does she pull them apart?  And what does all this have to do with photography?