Why not? Everyone in the "true artistic community" will not agree. There has always been controversy here, especially about photography as an art form, but not for me. I don't have the right words maybe, but human senses and emotions allow for all kinds of art forms - I can look at mud splatter with a few leaves artfully stuck to it and see a wonderful image. With negatives, too. I spent time being obsessed with the negative image of people, places, and things. I would shoot in Kodachrome or other reversal film, and print the negative of it in my darkroom at home. Then, maybe, alter chemistry, splash with liquids found around the house, even apply liquid emulsion with different "tools" to a miriad of objects and print on that. Experimenting produced some really unique images. These days, with my little digital camera and my pc at home, I am making ART again. Altering photographs is exciting to me, in the darkroom, with dyes, and now on the computer. As a newbie to earning a living with photography (years ago,) I wanted to do it all, and got a job in a pro lab making and developing copy negs. Then to retouching and make-ready, making multi-exposure negs for ad work, printing, and dye transfer - all by hand then. Finally working my way up and out into the studio. Now, I can take a photograph from idea to finished in several different forms, but I'm still learning about digital enhancement. How I would love to find a free Photo Shop download! Yes, it all qualifies as photographic art to me, Doc. I have been out of the business for 12 years now, and whether there is a distinction between altered photographic art and, say, portraiture, I can only guess. I hope my friend titou finds this - he will give you a much more in-depth answer than I can. And I like your photograph - I saw it last night at a friend's, but cannot access that site on this library computer to look at it again. Youtube, yes; Art, no. Go figure. lol