" A "bad artist" is rather a humourous contradiction in terms. Someone who draws, paints, and sculpts badly is definitely not an artist. Someone who takes out of focus, badly exposed photos with heads or feet cut off, may be a camera user or a picture taker but that person would be self-delusional to consider themselves a photographer."

Suppose the intent is out of focus badly exposed photos. Does that make the person a photographer? Or is it only when the image is technically correct and visually pleasing that they are considered a photographer?

Same could be said of someone who creates "bad" art. Perhaps the final piece is exactly how they envisioned it. Who's to say whether the writing, sculpting, painting or photo is good or bad?

If I take a photo with the head cut off, does that make me delusional to think that I am a photographer? What if I intentionally chop into the head?

I think art is created with intent. Other than that, who am I to say whether you or anyone else is an artist.

One more point...

" It is not only posting pictures on a site, it is also publishing in a paper, folder, magazine,presenting, entering a competition and selling your work. To do all of this successfully, the photograph must have a universal appeal and must communicate something about the photographer and his/her point of view of the scene or subject being photographed."


I don't think that these things qualify someone as a photographer. Does simply taking photographs (as opposed to being a picture-taker) for the joy that you find in it make you less of a photographer?