Las Vegas #3

The picture here represents a nagging question: When an artist creates something, and then someone comes and takes a picture of it, does that picture convey nothing more than an extension of the original artist's work? Is the captured image a work of art as well, attributable to the photographer?

I suppose the most stark example of this would be a photograph of a painting. It does take some practice, experience, and perhaps even talent to take a good picture of a painting. The objective of the photographer would be to capture as faithfully as possible the colors, nuances, and personality of the painting as intended by the original creator. This would render the role of the photographer as nothing more than a reproducer, not an artist, in my opinion.

In that vein, today's and tomorrow's postings are nothing more than sharing the creative talents of other artists...sincere plaudits to whoever it was that created them.