“The photographer is to the painter as the sampler is to the instrumentalist.” Bold statement, bold and various interpretations. Is this analogy feasible? Is this a negative thing? Positive? Some may see this as defamation of talent towards the painter and instrumentalist, others see it as innovation. Key question: if photography and sampling were never discovered, how would each field grow? Would there be other ways of painting and playing music discovered? It is hard to tell where there is a line that is being crossed or is crossable. Let’s face it, now photography and sampling are just as much as an art as their counterparts, should they not be viewed as such? That’s the question people could ask themselves, but I’d guess many don’t. I rarely heard about these issues until it came up in class, but again, without sampling, without photography, without innovation, where would the passions and talents of those people lie?