After grabbing a Crazy Dog at the Off Franklin bar and grill today with Jacques, I took an unplanned, fairly circuitous route back to work and Dey Hall. Having ventured into one of the many areas of campus undergoing construction, I decided not to risk continuing on a sidwalk that appeared to have no outlet, its path probably blocked by some extension of the big black fencing making up much of UNC's byzantine construction sites.

I went into Phillips Hall, which -- in addition to guaranteeing me a straight shot passage -- got me out of the exteme discomfort of Chapel Hill's current cold and dampness. Walking down one of the decrepit building's halls, I came upon photo after photo (all black and white) of diverse subjects -- a seemingly desultory collection at first glance. A close up of a Campagnolo derailleur; an elderly, bearded man; a highly-textured barn door; and a chiaroscuroed menagerie of glass chemistry vessels. Based on the technique exhibited in each shot, it was pretty obvious to me that every one of the some 50 photographs deserved to be on display.

Continuing on along the dim corridor, without the artwork a rather sterile tunnel, I came across the placard that revealed the reasons for the exhibit. At one time, the UNC Physics department actually offered a photography class in which students learned not only about optics but also darkroom science. The photos chosen to decorate the Phillip's hallway were apparently considered to be the most aestetically and/or technically supreme examples from a particular Physics 45 class. The department eventually discontinued the course -- probably, I'd bet, due to the costs and lack of a focused (pun not intended) curricular relevance.

But the last paragraph of this rather nostalgic and nigh-melancholic written guide to the photographs soured me in an instant. According to the writer, it was "unfortunate" that newer imaging technologies like "instant and digital cameras" were cheapening the artform, tempting photographer's away from technique and Quality.

What a load of analog arrogance. While a part me can understands a purist's anger, I still think there's ample reason and justification for the endeavors of a digital (or even instant) photographer, and if I were better-rested and steeled for the task I might pursue the argument. I'd claim that it's all in the eyes, the perspective, the photographer's interpretation of the subject matter. The hardware, equipment, darkroom, etc., ultimately have little or no bearing on the final image.

My advice to the old, photo fogey is this: Go out into a cow pasture and take two shots - one analog and one digital - of a pile of bullshit. I guarantee that, unless you get a little too far inside the lens' focal length, neither of the resulting images will stink or stick to your shoes.