[Leica] image quality has nothing to do with art but photography isn't necessarily art

[Kyle Cassidy <cassidy@netaxs.com>]

someone (with smart quotes turned on) made a grevious misunderstanding of
photography and art when posting:

>I probably do not understand current "Konica fiction"
>discussion, because of mix terms used. What is "image quality"?
>If we all agree that photography is a form of art , image
>quality is immeasurable. We can discuss film quality, lens quality,

while photography _can_ be art, it can also not be art. and from a purely
technical POV image quality can be quantified along the lines of correct
exposure, printing, clarity, resolution, etc. this can either be 

	a) divested nearly entirely from "art" (e.g. your holga shots)
or
	b) incorporated into your art (e.g. the technically excellent
	   photography of robert maplethorpe)

they don't have to walk hand in hand, but they may. photography has
significant other uses apart from art. in fact, most photographs are
decidedly not art and never presumed to be so. there are also a large
number of photographs which were intended to be art and are only very bad
art.

kc