In today's paper the Lifestyle section featured a segment on a book of photographs. The pictures extensively document the debris of the former World Trade Center buildings. This is all very normal, but one quote from the author struck me. He said "I didn't need to make art, just to make pictures that spoke to viewers and that viewers could connect to". If I have a photo of something and that picture speaks to me (moves me, enlightens me, etc.) so that I form a connection to the subject matter or spirit of what's portrayed, isn't that art? If it isn't, then what's missing? What is in the definition of art that's lacking here? Perhaps the significance of the photographer’s words is located earlier in the sentence when he says he didn’t need to make art, i.e. there isn’t anything in the way he photographed the wreckage that makes it art, the art exists in the scene itself. It is found art (be aware that I have only the most dubious notion of what that means).