Nicely done. As for the "art" part, a photograph can elicit a purely sensual response like food that tastes good or music that is pleasing to the ears. Some combinations of color, detail, geometry, etc. are simply pleasing to the eye. Some may also trigger memories. OTOH, some photos make a social commentary or at least challenge you to think about some particular issue. I think art must include both categories. I would argue that many of the great B&W landscapes fall into the same category as the "bug" shots, i.e., well composed, technically good, and pleasant to look at. The landscapes may also evoke certain feelings, although that will vary wildly with the state of the observer.
I will also admit the following. I am more attracted to technically superior, geometric, visually intriguing shots that I am to "random people in the street" pictures. This is only a tendency, however, as there are many photos I like from the latter category as well. My point is that "art" has long included the purely sensual, and it's impractical to leave it out of the definition of art. Just my $0.02 USD ;-)
