Philosophical discussion on what can be called a photograph

It should read . . . . those definitions that I use, ( are NOT part of mainstream understanding of terms" I do not expect people to conform to my meaning! sorry typo.

OK. I see what you're getting at. Like you, for me, the definitions are meant to be internal. And, for the same reason- to keep me within the parameters of what I'm doing. I do think it's important to be able to articulate process, motivation, etc. to others, though. Over the last 20+ years, I've done well over 100 art festivals and, I've found, people want to make a connection to the work beyond just the visual. The ability to describe your work coherently goes a long way towards making a sale.

I do agree, Probably the most difficult part for me, is to articulate a working term that sets a boundary> or, to use a term to explain "a set" dynamic. however I have never had the courage to take that conundrum to other people. each artist has "their" issues to work with, i certainly, i have mine. It is exasperating trying to verbalize, or write coherently, something . . .. well, that is intuitive> or work that is produced from/by a deep sedimentation of living; It's like answering the question . . . . what is the thinglyness of thing! IMO the art work produced is an answer to that, but. . . anyway enough of digressions.
I have for quite some time, left unattended, those questions, and have focused on new work THAT does not entail a verbally or in written form, an articulation of what I am doing or what the piece is, or how viewers should view. In my world, that is a distraction, an annoying distraction. But for other artists, that articulation is very important. I understand that, and have empathy, I too, at one point was concerned, and gave attention to the verbalization of art and art terms. At the moment, I am looking away........

See http://photoinflux.tumblr.com/post/123036122510/caption-anna-atkins-british-1799-1871-carix