okay i made a faux pas, i think i may have stated that photography (capturing the moment) is inferior to art?
i did not mean that
i mean its just different
way different
but both important

i totally commend u as someone working hard, to become a "photographer" which is the definition of that is a person who captures the "moment".
art is more than just that, its a exploration of concepts and ideas. that has aesthetic, production, critical and historical components.
i am just sick of the word artist being used so haphazardly.
people like paris hilton call themselves artists okay?
i love art so much, that i feel that anyone who wants to be one
must work for it. not just call themselves one.
the same way all other people do
at other things.
you got potential in the world of capturing the moment through a very critical eye, thats why u got the scholarship.
so go for it.
u have potential
dont settle for imperfect or wait for anything or anyone.
grab it and run as fast and as far as u can.

wow. ooo and whatchu going to do with that big artist lady?
all u do is take pics of shit and like enhance it on the computer.
aka anyone can do that?
aka whoever gave that to u probably dont know much.
people like Cezanne, Braque, Emile Node, Miro, (real artists)
never called themselves one?
they said everything they did was not art until like they were 70?
but i bet u like andy warhol so....

no. im not. but ur not an artist. getting a nice a camera and having photo editing software does not make u an artist. it involves hardwork. objectives. knowledge study it. study art history...
no one is more an artist
ur not an artist just because u call urself one.
if you called urself a ballerina would u be one? no!