One problem with communication in Art is the perplexity it encounters from the artistically uneducated public. The easy solution to this, adopted by the public in order to clarify the situation, was to restrict art to a luxurious and confined area which theoretically applied only to a few. The answer to this very real problem could be to reduce the artistically uneducated public by broadening the possibilities for providing artistic education in conjunction with the dissembling of the myth about artistic elitism and social confinement. However, in the course of the last twenty years an easier, faster and more superficial method of bridging the gap between the public and art has been favoured and probably dominated. This method relieves both the educated and the uneducated from any difficulties in approaching the substantial yet difficultly accessible dimension of the mystery of Art. The method chose an ostensibly scientific interpretation as a tool for artistic analysis, leaving to one side any poetic abstraction. Even artists preferred to dedicate more time to the interpretative process in art and their art rather than the production process. The photograph inevitably stars in the diffusion of this method. There are many different reasons for this. Time required for its creation is usually minimal, with the result that it requires the addition of textual analysis to increase its prestige. The obvious information it carries are perfect for the formulation of apparently logical statements. Its mystery is not obvious and its surface resists the abstract, tending towards interpretation and proof. It is almost certain that this tendency to underline the logical interpretation of the photograph to the detriment of its poetic word will not shake off easily. Let us hope at least to retain the respect for the power of the mystery and the abstract which must always be present when looking at photography as an art and art as a spiritual work.