Urban landscapes are foreign to some, but all too familiar to those of us who experience it daily. The structures that people innocently gloss over in their day to day lives possess an infinite amount of detail and history. The battle over whether or not the content of a photograph is artistic enough to be considered art has been debated since the inception of photography in the 1800’s. The invention of the hand camera brought the debate into the mainstream due to the sudden accessibility to the lower classes and the ease of use. In the present day, tourist and art photography in an urban landscape are forced to coexist against their will. Digital photography is as accessible as the hand camera was in the 1800’s. The precipice between the artist and the hobbyist couldn’t be any more vast. As an artist, I see the architecture as a story with a beginning, middle and end. I view buildings as a composition of symmetrical value, shadow detail, light angle, climate effects, tactile acuity, structural damage, line flow, color palate and aesthetics of shape. Meanwhile the tourist photographer peripatetically wanders. That’s the difference between art photography and the photography of the masses: the intention. I often see subjects of this scale as existing in a state of flux, a constant state of motion without a beginning or end, just the middle. Many of these photos are presented with an infinite scope within reality. And that was my intent all along.