Hehehe, oh boy, that word benign, I forgot that it could be taken two different ways. I meant the benign as in TUMOR, when a tumor is benign it means that it will not spread or grow. For someone to suggest that photography or any form of "creativity" is not art or a valid medium towards artistic merits is a thought of stagnation, for it leaves no room for growth and utilization of all those wonderful innovations and/or tools of learning available to us as artists. There is so much at our disposal in the world of art and although we cannot possibly be expected to learn each and every form of medium to our hearts content, that does not mean that they have no purpose or role as value or nourishment to the way we look at things and play out our roles and talents as artists. There was a time when photography stood out strong as a major competitor for fine art, which really should never have been the case as far as I am concerned personally, because I feel the two aid and nurture one another extremely well. Today it has become more a battle of wits between Digital Art and Fine Arts, the feud is still quite similar but instead of having a major role as a contestant, photography has been kind of swept in with digital art somewhere and has no real stamina on its' own merits anymore even though it is still a very signifigant "differential" in many ways. This is how it "appears" to be far too often among computer arts people who think photography is just a shot in the dark and not real art; in behind the scenes one cannot even take a legit art course without photography 101 and yet there is nothing at all about digital art as a pre-requisit...strange how backwards it all seems?? Again I find that Digital VS Fine Art is a rather sad stumbling block because I feel that once again the opportunity for a healthy relationship of creativity combining two prominents may well be missed far too often by bias and insecurity and a refusal to grow.