Does a photo need to say something?

[WillCAD]

Your example contradicts, Wildcad's point I believe too, that if one person believes it to be art then it is. No it isn't. Some consensus and agreement is necessary among a mixed group of peers and others familiar with art or photography to "assess" whether it is art or not.

Ronnoco

So basically, art is art, and a person is an artist, only if other artists say so?

So you have to be an artist-approved artist to declare others artists so that they can approve you as an artist...

Your argument is elitist, circular, and self-serving, not to mention narrow-minded.

Like the dictionary says: art is "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced."

I see nothing in there about consensus, arbitrary approvals, or subjective "assessments" by anybody else.

[Ronnoco]

So basically, art is art, and a person is an artist, only if other artists say so?

Your argument is elitist, circular, and self-serving, not to mention narrow-minded.
.

Really, I think it is rather silly to suggest in the reverse of my argument that anything using paint, chalk, plaster or a variety of other media is art, anything written is literature, any noise is music, and anything in video format is a great movie or great television.

Recognized quality determines the nature of the work. I find it humourous that anyone would consider this simple basic fact as elitist, narrow-minded, and how it could possibly be self-serving is beyond ridiculous.

Ronnoco

[WillCAD]

Really, I think it is rather silly to suggest in the reverse of my argument that anything using paint, chalk, plaster or a variety of other media is art, anything written is literature, any noise is music, and anything in video format is a great movie or great television.

Recognized quality determines the nature of the work. I find it humourous that anyone would consider this simple basic fact as elitist, narrow-minded, and how it could possibly be self-serving is beyond ridiculous.

Ronnoco

I never said than anything video qualifies as a great movie or television. It might be crap, but it's still art.

Recognized quality indicates the recognized quality of art. It does not qualify or disqualify it as art.

I find it elitist that you think only artists can say what is or is not art. That's like saying only an MLB player can say whether or not somebody is a real baseball player.

Well, if your photography has won professional awards, been published in photo, travel, sports or other magazines, if it is in some galleries, if you have been asked to present photo seminars, if your photo business is extremely successful, etc. then the implication is that the quality of your work is at the artistic level.

What if your business is only moderately successful? What if you have only been published in a student magazine? What if you were nominated for an award but didn't win?

The qualities you mentioned can indeed be used to judge whether a piece of art is accepted or successful, but not to judge whether it is or is not art.

Your argument is that art is only art if it is recognized as such by other artists. But what if it is only recognized as such by non-artists? What if is recognized as such by only one artist? Or by 5?

What standard do these other artists use to judge something as art or not art? If you can define their standard, then non-artists could use that same standard to judge for themselves what is or is not art. If you can't define the standard, then their judgement becomes completely subjective, rendering it no more or less valuable than a non-artist's judgement.

[Ronnoco]

[QUOTE=WillCAD}I find it elitist that you think only artists can say what is or is not art. That's like saying only an MLB player can say whether or not somebody is a real baseball player..[/QUOTE]

Well, when it really comes down to it, it is former MLB players or coaches with a lot of experience that are doing the scouting that determine the "real baseball players".

[QUOTE=WillCAD}
What if your business is only moderately successful? What if you have only been published in a student magazine? What if you were nominated for an award but didn't win?
..[/QUOTE]

That is an experience common to many photographers at the beginning of their careers, but the really capable ones have gone on to win. I won awards, but not every award, I was nominated for. That experience is standard. The reality is that all that means is that I am better than some photographers but not as good as others. So what! That just means that I still have goals and objectives to strive for, and life would be boring without them.

[QUOTE=WillCAD}
Your argument is that art is only art if it is recognized as such by other artists. But what if it is only recognized as such by non-artists? What if is recognized as such by only one artist? Or by 5?..[/QUOTE]

If we are talking about the views of non-artists, it depends on their experience in the artistic field. If the non-artist has had absolutely no exposure to art and has not seen different levels of talent and capability in the field, then their views are questionable. If on the other hand they have studied art, seen a lot of it, and taught basic artistic skills to students successfully then their view is going to be more credible. If as well, they have their own careers bordering on the art field that are successful, then they may acquire even a little more credibility.

The reality is that a lot of hardened, realistic, successful professionals in various artistic fields have come upon what could be characterized as "off-the-wall fruitcakes" claiming to have intuitive insight into self-expressive art often while abusing substances. They may classify themselves as artists but no serious dedicated artist would agree with them. Then there are perhaps well-meaning amateurs with limited insight that don't realize that there is no such thing as instant success and instant respect as an artist in any of the creative fields without a lot of inate talent, hard work, effort and some business sense.

[QUOTE=WillCAD}
What standard do these other artists use to judge something as art or not art? If you can define their standard, then non-artists could use that same standard to judge for themselves what is or is not art. If you can't define the standard, then their judgement becomes completely subjective, rendering it no more or less valuable than a non-artist's judgement.[/QUOTE]

In photography I have already defined the standard. It is the elements of design or composition that are common to other art fields, combined with excellence in technique. In the elements of design and composition, you can ignore one of the elements only if it does not detract from your image, which means that in most cases you can't meet that requirement. In technique, every photographic decision that you make , must contribute to the overall image. Otherwise it detracts from your centre of interest and is a weakness in the image.

Ronnoco