Surely, The difference between documentary photography, and artistic photography, lies purely in the composition? An appropriation of another work, photographed in such a way that it abstracts the image, would essentially become a valid work of art in itself, no?
That abstraction, is a result of another persons vision, and whilst the subject matter of the image is the same, another persons vision on the flux, form or meaning of the original has as much validity as the original. Is art not essentially defined by the response to the work anyway?
