Response to Bryson's post about Bell

In response to what Bryson had said here:http://brycen-honorsartandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/02/representation.html?showComment=1299198983406#c3333453850994794858

Alright, personally, I have a lot to say on this subject to which I feel is a particularly juicy debate about art.

First I want to talk about photography as an art, because in our current day and time, photography is much less an art form than what it once was. However, to preface this statement, there are two things that are necesary to point out about photography to which are the different aspects of its art. The first is that photography is an art of being able to capture an aesthetic in its purest form or representation in real life imagery. The second is that it is an art of being able to manipulate the outcome of the final image that you will have. There is one thing that has to be noted about the second art though; and this is that electronic manipulation to achieve the image you desire does not qualify in the true art of photography, for it involves none of the actual strain inherent in achieving your goal. With this being said, photography is certainly capable of being art still, but its really only half art unless you are efficient enough to use a dark room.

Now to answer your second questions, a lot about life is more artistic that one would expect, for I personally agree with the concept of aesthetics being art in their own respect. So technically, there would be a lot out in nature that would appeal to the view of the artist, which can evidently be captured in an image by a camera.

Does this format of looking at photography make sense in the realm of defining things about art?