Digital BW, The Print

Bill,

> I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say that just because there is a
> school of art that is labeled "abstract", that other art is not abstract.

That's simply poppycock.  "abstract" is a generally accepted term, and
something that represents reality is not abstract, something that doesn't,
is abstract.  I know there is some line there, I'm not saying where it is,
but the point is photography is, in and of it self, NOT abstract.

> Why is this important?

Because someone said that ALL photography was abstract, and that's simply
not true, given the definition of abstract that applies here.  Using Keith's
definition of abstract, EVERYTHING is abstract but the object it self, but
anyone's perception of it is abstract...and that's simply not a universally
accepted "view" (definition) of abstract as it applies here.

> To me it's important because it helps me stay
> focused on the image, as an expressive end to itself, in the
> present moment,
> not as an aid to remember a moment, place, and event that have passed.

But that doesn't speak for ALL photography, now does it?

Austin