Interesting questions, Chris... You know, I was 'trained' as a graphic designer. One of our classes was called 'photographics' (not photography). The point of this class was to use photography as a starting point and do something creative with it afterwards. The class was given by one of our finest Belgian portrait and art photographers, Ronny Heirman. He was constantly pushing us to go 'beyond the barriers' of traditional photography. Mind you, digital photography didn't exist in those days... We used and invented special darkroom and reproduction techniques. To put it in the words of your question: we were taught to 'doodle'... I often ask myself this question: has anyone ever seen a movie or a video clip where the images weren't manipulated? I guess only news reports use unaltered footage (at best, that is). All the other stuff you see on television or in a movie theatre use manipulated images... from the weather forecast to a music show or a quiz program. And another question: let's say that you want a photograph of a face, but it has to be all in blue... Now would you go and buy blue lights or filters, or would you add the blue afterwards in Photoshop? Hats off to those who have the ability and resources to do that in-camera without manipulation afterwards... But what's the difference actually..? Many of the creative filter processes in image manipulation software are specifically based on traditional darkroom techniques... So, yes, I 'doodle', because I was taught to twenty years ago... but I don't doodle all the time. And I don't understand the question: "is it photography OR is it art?"...

We do not see things as they are. ǝɹɐ ǝʍ sɐ sƃuıɥʇ ǝǝs ǝʍ