Digital BW, The Print

> Austin,
>
> Daring to intervene in this 'battle of wits', it occurs to me that the
> photographs you are taking are perhaps NOT art. Art is surely
> something that
> is an interpretation of the scene that is in the mind of the artist; it is
> not just a record of the scene in front of him/her. Your
> statements seem to
> say that you simply insist on accurately photographically RECORDING the
> scene in front of you. That probably makes you a scientist, not an artist.
>
> Bob Frost.

Bob,

If the creative element has entered the fray, that makes it art in my book.
Photography does entail both art and science...but because it does entail
science, does not make it not art...and because it entails some creativity,
doesn't make it not science either...

So, if a painter specifically matches the color of his/her paint to match
the color of a flower, it's science the resultant painting is not art?

One can "create" the image by having the vision to "see" the beauty in a
specific "scene", or even the vision to wait FOR the beauty of a scene to be
revealed.

Regards,

Austin