The bird may be intrinsically interesting, but that's not what the image displays. The camera is certainly intrinsically interesting, and here's why : because when pushed to its limits, it delivers integral and complete a whole current of art. Much like computers deliver whole centuries of piled rational effort in just a few seconds, this camera produced all the impressionism there's ever gonna be any call for, in consideration of a click and a fraction of a watt.

You may be looking at it because I published it ; but the camera nevertheless made it (also because I pointed it, sure). I was as surprised by the result as anyone, yet it's there as it is, by itself.

Nobody's conceivably ever going to sit down and figure out by hand the 5000th decimal of pi anymore -- yet if they did, it'd be about them, and their idiosyncratic internals. It wouldn't be interesting to anyone else, not ever again, and so it is here : impressionism may still be an activity for the one hellbent on wasting paints and pigments ; but as far as impressionisms' output is concerned, the going rate's ten square feet to the quarter cent.

The bird is intrinsically interesting, and the camera's capabilities, too. But I'm looking at to the degree I am because it's yours, because something of you exists, somewhere in there, and I am keen to seek it. Maybe that makes me perverse, but hopefully not quite Siennese.

Let it communicate about the subject, according to the implicit limits of representative possibility, which is precisely what the camera does do and the painter tries to do.