In regard to the question "can photographic efforts be 'art'," I have noticed that many photographers (in the photographic forums I frequent) seem to consider their efforts more artistic if they are in black and white. The late 19th and early 20th century debates over whether and how photography could be art might be an interesting topic to explore here. As I understand it, and this is only the roughest of sketches, it involves a complex interaction between developments in photography and developments in art. In brief, the usual story is that the invention of photography threatened painters traditional monopoly on mimesis, the accurate reproduction of nature. The painters responded with various avant-garde movements that shifted their "art" from accurate reproduction to expression of subjective vision and feeling. Art photographers initial response was to produce photographs that emulated contemporary trends in painting, as these evolved from staged tableaux to landscapes and portraits, that early on tended to be heavily touched-up at the printing stage. These Pictorialist approaches provoked a Modernist response that demanded "straight," i.e., not touched-up, black and white (no pigments allowed) approach in which gradation and contrast in light and rhythm in form were held up as epitomizing artistic vision. A whole lot in these debates concerns questions of interest to the philosophers among us: Is the ideal an eye so clear that it faithfully reproduces the world around us, an eye with a vision of its own that it projects onto reality, or a complex mixture of reproduction, modification and manipulation whose mechanisms are still not very well understood but increasingly the subject of, in particular, neurological research. All sorts of cool stuff to look at, too. John -- John McCreery The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN Tel. +81-45-314-9324 jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.wordworks.jp/