Hey, I can draw. I spent several years in architecture school before realizing that I didn't just want to draw, but rather create, and that creation meant more for me than just representation of walls and space. Switching to engineering gave me insight into a design process that started much deeper than aesthetics, but that for me still demands elegance to do it well. But I don't confuse that with art.

I've known a lot of painters. I've never known a single one of them who shied away from calling themselves artists, even if they were modest (some appropriately so) about their abilities. For them, it was not a term of pretense, but a simple statement: I make art. Many of them do explore different media, but I have never known one who said, "Gee, in addition to oil painting, I am now trying charcoal, so now I am a real artist." They experiment with different media because they are still looking for the voice that rings true for them--that is uniquely theirs. I painted and drew from earliest childhood, and one or two of my childhood attempts are still hanging on walls, providing some visual interest that goes beyond (maybe not far beyond) mere decoration. I was never particularly painterly--even my paintings were photographic in their approach. So, as I experimented with media, photography came along and finally resonated with how I wanted to express myself. I'm not really all that good in the grand scheme of things, but like those everyday painters out there who unpretentiously call themselves artists, I will too.

I'll make this point again: When we make all these demands on photography just to be Art, those who feel the joy and try to express it often get rejected by definition. That does two terrible things, in my view: 1.) It invalidates what should be a legitimate artistic experience being felt by real people who don't care about these sorts of discussions, and 2.) it applies a different and more demanding definition of art with respect to photography than what is customarily accepted for painting, drawing, and so on.

Not everyone is born with artistic talent. Most who are not don't care, and spend their time in other pursuits. Some are not and still wish to be, having ideas they cannot express either through lack of skill or inability to understand their own feelings clearly enough to express them. In the music world, people spend their lives attaining mere mediocrity. I spent the weekend at Watermelon Park in Virginia listening to musicians of all abilities (and ages) desperately trying to develop the ability to create the music that touches them to the core. Most never achieve excellence. But are we really so wise that we will reject what they do as music?

Many would like to apply a standard to art, beneath which art is not art but mere scribbling or snapshots. Personally, I think they need to get over themselves. If the photographer felt something deep, and still feels it when looking at it hanging on the wall, someone else is going to get it. When that happens, art has taken place. Maybe it's an accident, but does that really matter? Maybe it will never happen again for that artist, but does that really matter? Maybe the expression is flawed by poor technique, requiring one to dig deeper to see the expression, but does that really matter?

Were the cave artists who made their cave art (and I've never heard it called anything else) trying to express something profound or were they just keeping track of their day?

Rick "thinking art is not well-served by a priesthood" Denney