And, while Naomi Rosenblum’s synoptic History of

The condition of scholarship devoted to the history of women in photography is confounding. Recent years have witnessed the posthumous inflation of the role of the hobby ist Alice Austen into that of a pioneering documentarian while dozens of notable senior figures — Marion Palfi, whose photographs of civil-rights activities in the South served as early evidence of the need for protective legislation, to name one — received scant attention from scholars. And, while Naomi Rosenblum’s synoptic History of Women Photographers covers the subject through 1920 in a generally useful fashion, once she reaches the 1920s, when the venues, forms, applications, and movements of the medium expanded exponentially, she resorts to an increasingly terse listing of un - familiar names, with approaches and careers summarized in a sentence or two.

What is the idea of the bold sentence?

I would say that Naomi Rosenblum was describing women photographers of 1920 in a usual fashion, that is paying attention to their biographies, characteristics, achievements etc because the phenomenon of a woman as a photographer wasn’t that widespread then. It all changed in the 1920s, with photography growing very fast/exponentially and becoming more complex. Perhaps that period of exponential growth produced so many new names that the author was left with no other choice than just listing them and summarizing their careers in a sentence or two.

Thank you, Eugene2114.