So one would then at this point, try and define, to ones self exactly what constitutes a substantial impact. I would put forward that a substantial impact would be one, which remnants are visible through the completed work. Substantiality would then be based on whether or not the aesthetic or meaning of the photograph still influences. Therefore I decree that substantiality can be undervalued, but not overvalued.
(more content follows the advertisement below) A D V E R T I S E M E N T
That would send me in the direction of Scharf�s argument. To back this up Scharf argues that Degas was influenced by the snapshot photograph, this is in a way an aesthetic value, but moreover it is Degas trying to convey a meaning of convention.
This meaning of convention is never truly assessed in regard to Degas work by Vanerdoe. His best attempt at rebutting this argument is that any decent photographer would not take such an outwardly strange composition, and that photography was not in fact a new invention, and even that photographs from this time are not widely available (a point he even disadvantages in his own foot notes).
To address all of these points, Scharf talks about �snapshot photography� not professional camera work, no photography was not a new invention, but widely available photography was, and that photos from Degas era are not widely available; �available in quantities in the 1960�s �Vanerdoe�. This would then seem to rebut any argument for the sake of playing upon photography�s availability or usage.
In fact the information given by Vanerdoe from pages 103 through 105 actually never refer to the snapshot photograph, yet he still makes the assertion that ��this means among other things that a nineteenth century painting may share many characteristics with a photograph, without being the least bit influenced by photography; and therefore we should be vary wary of unjustly enlarging the claims made for photography�s effect�.
It would probably be best at this time to asses whether or not a shroud statement such as �impressionist�, in reference to the argument of photographic influence can be made. Aaron Scharf�s article �Degas and the Instantaneous Image� can be dumbed down to that, the argument that is made is indeed in reference to the work of Degas, rather than to impressionism as a whole, as degas work was obviously his own, and only generically applied itself to the impressionist movement..