posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 03:53 AM
Oh no! Not the debate on "what is art".
There are of course those who consider photography not to be art. Is a good, well composed photograph art, especially because in this day and age the
photographer would doubtlessly used a computer to change the origibal image. Does that matter?
I think "art" is what you take it to be. I think some aspects of modern art are pointless, but then people (usually with silly glasses) will say
that art [is]is[/is] pointless - that's the point!
My advice is to take it as it comes. If the photograpgh is meaningful and ticks the boxes then call it "art", but on that basis you should do the
same with the photos in your family album.
Next time you are in London walk through the National Gallery
to actually see art that moves you.
Alternatively, go to any gallery of worth. Looking at old Masters in books and on the Internet is no experience - you have to see art in the flesh.
That is the experience.