Ha. You got back to “art” which leaves me an opening. Back on one of the Chicago posts, you said, in reply to something I said, “You say that you can’t just go out and poke around for art — but isn’t that exactly (EXACTLY) what Robert Frank, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Lee Friedlander and Garry Winogrand did ? And they seem to have convinced many people of the value of their work. Oh, and the “darling” Alec Soth. And the irrepressibly ubiquitous Stephen Shore. Where would modern photography be without mindless wandering? I thought about that for several days (seriously) and concluded, I don’t know where modern photography would be without those guys and their mindless wandering, but I don’t think what they were making was art. What they were doing is documentary, and very, very few documentary photographers are making art. (Okay, call me an art snob.) Cartier-Bresson is only a marginal exception. The other guys? Nope. The problem with photography, especially street photography, is that it’s taken in an instant, it’s taken in reaction, which is true of most documentary photography. Serious art, on the other hand, and IMHO, takes lengthy contemplation because it’s constructed, rather than “taken” or “shot.” Those very common photographic words suggest something outside the creator’s body, something has to exist before the photographic made. That is not true of most serious art. I don’t completely rule out photography as art, but there are damn few photographs that would meet my criteria. YMMV.