The dicipline of photography has never been seperate in my mind from true art. Uh, what is "true" art? Art is not defined by it's potential to sell or make a profit for the artist. Art may live a double life. It may be utilitarian and beautiful at the same time - like a head shot of an actor or model looking for an audition. Or a portrait of a musician or band looking for a visual aspect to marketing themselves beyond the music. Sure, there is place in the world for commercial, technically precise photographic images. We preserve time in 1/250 of a second. But is is not the mechanism of the camera that is responsible. Has "taking pictures" in the current age of digitally brilliant post production capabilities/smart phone/social media become so commonplace now, that anyone who can press a button may be called a photographer? An artist? A photographer who has studied various diciplines such as painting, drawing and sculpture, this is an artist at work. A camera in the hands of an artist with the heart of a seeker, an explorer adds something of herself to the image. It is no longer just a record of that moment in time; no longer simply a physical and soulful image of the subject; but becomes something else.