I came across this topic last night, in my time frame, but felt too tired to join in then. Which is probably just as well, since Punkclown and Peter have now expressed views that pretty much match my own. Personally, I think trying to define 'art' is an exercise in frustration. I think people have different standards for what they will accept as art in different media and I think this has much to do with what they perceive as the skill required to use that medium. Fundamentally, painting and photography are both just recording media, a means to a produce an image. Almost everyone can take a faithful record of a scene using a camera, while far fewer have the skill to produce an equally faithful record using conventional 'art' materials. Place the two images side by side and I would guess that most people would accept the painting as 'art', largely irrespective of it's quality, but not the photograph. For the photograph to be accepted as art, in the past at least, the photographer must first demonstrate mastery of the media, in terms of framing, lighting, mood and tonality. In other words, to demonstrate skills that take photography beyond a simple recording medium. I think terms like 'creativity' and 'intensity' are also very relevant, but, arguably, have more to do with what people will define as 'good' or 'bad' art, rather than with the fundamental acceptance of whether an 'image' is art, or not. If you accept that perceived skill is a factor in this debate, then I think there is a simple answer to Peter's question. Yes, the computer is undermining the perception of photography as an 'art' form. The skill of many renowned photographers was not confined to the point at which they released the shutter, but was probably even more evident in their darkroom technique. While programs like Photoshop, do not reduce the knowledge required for good 'darkroom' technique, they do, from personal experience, make that knowledge more accessible and lower the skill level and dedication required to apply that knowledge. I think this is a point Peter, himself effectively made in a an earlier post and I can't help wandering if that prompted this question ? I'm not too concerned whether people regard my work as 'art' or not. Personally, I don't. I like to create 'images', first and foremost for my own pleasure and satisfaction. If sharing those images arouses some emotion in others, then that is a bonus, even more so if it is a positive emotion :) I started using Ultra Fractal a little over 12 months ago and the worst thing I did was to try and change my style to match the skill of others. I got so frustrated that I didn't use the program again for a long time. Oddly enough I tend to use UF in a style that mimics photography. is that undermining the 'art' of fractals ? :) Take care all, Mike