Originally posted by mattb123 When I was a watercolorist I was skeptical that photography could be art at all. I've since softened on that stance considerably and my definition of what is art has only become more inclusive over time. Sure there's art I don't care for much because it's over done or I don't like the subject or message but that doesn't make it not art.
I don't think the article posited that those photos aren't "art", just that they're not as wonderful to the author as they are to others.
Photography is and always has been an art. (And a craft.) All you need to do is take a photo with two different lenses, or at different apertures, to understand that their is a clearly emotive ("art"?) function to the results.
And anyway, as long as Duchamp's toilet hangs on a museum wall, the definition of "art" is expansive.
Originally posted by halfspin The real issue is no one feels special. Boohoo I'm not the only one who can make pretty pictures! 7 billion ppl make for some steep competition.
There can be some of this. Many people who take these shots have to work very, very hard to get them - hiking miles, enduring hot/cold/wind/rain, or waiting for hours/days/weeks/a lifetime. Many of us are unwilling or unable to do these things. I, for one, truly appreciate what goes into many of these images and admire the work.
So while I might be impressed with the effort (or the "eye", or the post-processing), these photos have all started to look less and less
interesting to me.
I recently perused a portfolio solely of double-exposures. The photos were mostly dark, sometimes hard to understand, but they undeniably captured my emotions more than the landscapes presented here.