I must be astounded that you chose to look me up six months after our original conversation simply to reiterate your opinion on your chosen art form. However I cannot help but feel that this comment simply stems from your re-reading past comments and choosing to strike up old arguments, which denotes a certain amount of narcissism on your part. However it is not my place to berate you for it.

Equate art with non-representational images? Hardly. Any and all forms of art are to some degree representational images whether they be representational of thought, feeling, word, or deed. The fact that you think "true art" is more than "simply using one's imagination and creating non-representational images" shows a certain amount of ignorance towards art as a whole as well as a belittling of the expanses of the human mind. To refer to the imagination is not only to refer to fantastical images of fancy but rather anything conceivable by the human mind. When you take a picture you imagined what you wanted and what it would look like beforehand. Imagination was used when the first camera was created, when the first darkroom techniques were developed, and when photoshop is used. It is never "simply using ones imagination," it is always about using ones imagination. To describe the employment of the imaginative mind as something of a lesser value within your art form is to degrade your art form and lower its class to that of monotonous and commonplace. Which even I must say it is not.

You seem to be particularly sore with my comment "you cannot make a photograph anything more than what it is." Let me just say that I will admit it was not a well thought out comment and was somewhat insensitive. However, I cannot help but detect a certain amount of animosity towards that which is not your sovereign art form.

I do not imply that photography is merely a mechanical function, only that it does not hold the same reverence in my heart as other forms of artistic expression. Do not over-think the extent to which I hold an opinion for or against something. You are not performing a "mechanical function devoid of conscious decision and choice." Is such a feat possible among photographers? Yes. Just as it is as much possible for painters or writers. What I seem to imply or not imply is, I understand, purely within your personal scope of the situation. However, and I will reiterate this, to say that one is more free than the other is to not have looked from the other side of the looking glass. That was my original point and continues to remain so. I'm not here to upbraid your artistic expression, merely to point out that your publicly displayed reverence for it and continued argument with me displays a measure of conceited pretentiousness. And I apologize for my assumed insult, however I cannot help but point out, again, to re-assume a six-month dead conversation on such a whim as to rebuke my opinion again is not only bizarre- but comical at the least.

Thank you for thanking me for expressing my opinions, I would thank you again for yours, but I'm still taken aback. I will thank you for the interesting conversation, though I would not encourage you reestablishing it further. I won't deny a respect for your art form and hope you will be satisfied after your latest ejaculation of fervently impassioned speech.