>>4116273In my line of work, it is. In practice, accuracy is very difficult to achieve. Color accuracy, especially when trying to reproduce artwork, is high perceptual, meaning it depends on factors other than the objective SPDs of the various colors in the art. Metamerism is especially hard to deal with since digital sensors have the best color response under D50, but most art galleries use Tungsten like LED lighting. The reproduction looks very nice under D50 studio lighting, but very different in the gallery next the original.
More generally, while tricky, reproducing artwork can be done, especially for certain easy mediums(watercolor, charcoal, graphite, subtractive trad prints), its basically impossible for anything else. Forget prints, even the best screens can't match the dynamic range or saturation of real scenes. We can reproduce the relative differences of tone and color pretty well, but calibration of the capture workflow is very difficult and why artists pay me the big bucks to capture artwork.
Photography and art in general isn't "about" anything. Its just a tool for creative expression. My own art centers around the play between the objective scene in front of the camera and the simplicity of the composition. It creates this interesting of feeling of knowing that the photo is real, but unsure what it is. While you might be able to pin down that its a building, it becomes wholly unfamiliar. That is interesting.
