I read your post with interest. As a photographer, I find great parallels in the visual world, and specifically, with the way different 'artists' see and photograph.

There are the literalists; photos of trees that are taken just to record the data, 'This is what an oak tree looks like.'

There are photos of trees taken to record, "this is a beautiful tree, as you would surely agree if you were here looking at this postcard-of-a-scene. Isn't nature beautiful." (yawn)

There are photos taken because someone goes beyond the literal, the data, or knowledge, to the point of creative synthesis; "This is a tree that you would ordinarily not notice, but because I see it in a unique way and can share my vision with you via a photograph, you can see in a new and (hopefully) delightful way that which you have never thought of before, and if I'm really lucky, it will suggest a story (trees perform a secret night dance when no one is looking and may have an entire hidden life) and henceforth, you will always remember the tale of the night-dancing trees when you see those puny little saplings in the office park parking lot, and life will seem a bit more magical and wondrous."

And through the great invention of social networking via flickr, I can share my vision with people all over the globe, and be equally inspired and enlightened through seeing their unique visions, that tell me stories and show me things I didn't know were possible, via their images.

I've read tweets that were as subtle and nuanced as haiku, setting an emotional stage and leaving edgy unanswered questions in their wake, and then again, I've read tweets that flowed from the empty into the void. It's the person reflected, not the depth of the puddle.