> In a philosophical or artistic sense, I'm sure it would be > *different*, since it wouldn't have the same sort of ubiquitous > photographic images to play off of, but artists work in any medium > that's around and strikes their fancy, Is art, by it's very nature, elitist? Once you call yourself "an artist" are you not in a way claiming to be "better" than mere camera users? A few days ago there was a discussion (short) about accessibility of art ... I guess that's why I don't call myself an artist - to claim superiority over those that do <BG> Bob
