Thank you for all the interesting responses.

MattO: I agree that what is interesing to me as "art" is of importance to me, and that the definitions of "art" are pretty abstract(like uhhh I don't "get" it) but I find there is an important element of communication involved. Reproductions provide greater opportunity for propaganda, but do they have the same stuff as an original? I can buy an Ansel Adams poster for next to nothing, and it will convey the same image with considerable satisfaction(I remember a "reproduction" on the wall of the hospital education center where my bride and I took a La Maze class. It was Ansel's detail of Yosemite Falls---quite appropriate for the part about breaking water BTW!) but there does seem to be some kind of "life" to the original.

tim: This certainly makes sense to me. A negative isn't an original print. Its sort of like the dotted outline(or matrix as you put it) Michealangelo(or was it Charleton Heston?) used in painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. What I find interesting is that some photography which is meant to be documentary, is considered "Art" such as Washburn's aerials, which I certainly "see" as art though they weren't shot with that intent(or were they?) or Weegee's journalistic shots.

Calamity: You're right, of course. I don't know why (or what good it is) to make a distinction between art and journalism, much less original and reporductions of art---I'm just curious, I guess. BTW, sorry for causing the Brain cramp!

John: Sounds good to me. Very profound observations.

Brian: Good point. For me, the "taking" is just as important as the printing. Maybe its the level of sensitivity achieved during the creative process. ...Hmmm....Do you advocate that the applause during a performance? ;-)

Jeff: You don't need it, unless you're curious about the world around you.

Leonard: You're point about being consumed with the notion of doing it well is well taken. I see a problem in that if you're a manic compulsive(maybe like me) it never really is "well." The learning curve for LF is an easily reached plateau(IMHO) but to produce something that is truly outstanding is an entirely different matter---it seems more the combination of vision and good(no, great) fortune. Getting prints that are flawless is certainly a goal, but until I can do that, should I not try? Should I not regard my work as "good, bad, or ugly" by some other reference or is craftsmanship the only scale for evaluation?

Nick: Very good points as well. I think that while the "aura" of an original can certainly be "celebrity" there must be more to it than that. A child's original Crayola drawing to me has some kind of energy I can't explain(even if its not my own child's.) I've seen commercial Crayola drawing-oids attempting to portray some childish image that does nothing. Same with sculpture---check out the David at Ceasar's Palace and compare with the original in Florence----there isn't any! Why is that?

Michael: You're right, it is Walter Benjamin. I didn't have his name available---it wasn't in my scribbled notes---but his ideas are what prompted this. I'm not advocating poor work though, only that work is work (or art is art) that an artist has a need to do. I think those of us who can afford a new Wisner or Ebony(or a spavined Speed Graphic) who have little or no experience with view cameras---or even classic photography as taught in the High Schools of yore---are the best example. We see Ansel Adams or Weston(or Muench or Sally Mann) and recognize a desire thats best expressed in the medium of LF. The mahogany(or alloy) and bellows are enchantresses---"enablers"---and we drool over them and covet them, not for themselves(thats the realm of the antique collectors) but for what this gear can do in the hands of the creative and (sounds wussy) sensitive. Not polished craftsmanship, but polished craftsmanship does not make vision "art" It can make a technically beautiful print however, but not all technically beautiful prints are satisfying to look at any more than a race horse with beautiful conformation can be a winner if he's left in the dust by a swayback who happens to get to the finish line firstus with the mostest. Heart is, if not "everything" then it is at least very important in producing artistic photographs. Pin holes, Holgas, and wet plate colloid seem to me to be the very best examples of "heart." Just my 2-cents.