Does a photo need to say something?

[WillCAD]

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".

Scouts determine who has enough talent to play for the major leagues. The DO NOT determine who is or is not a ball player.

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.

Vincent Van Gough sold only one painting in his entire career. He never won any awards, and as far as I know, he was never published or exhibited while he was alive. Is his work then "not art"?

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.

So only those who have studied and taught art are capable of recognizing what is or is not art? Then why the hell are there museums? Why are there movie theaters? Why are there magazines? Are these not venues where ordinary, uneducated folks can appreciate art? Or is it your opinion that only a self-appointed group of Art Gods can tell people, "Here, this is art - because WE say it is. You may look at it. But that over there, that's not art. You may think it's pretty, it may speak to you, it may have some relevance to your life, but WE say it's not art, so ignore it and move on." Sorry, dude, I may not be the freest thinker in the history of the world, but I refuse to have others tell me what IS or IS NOT art, I prefer to make up my own mind.

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 innate talent, hard work, effort and some business sense.

Yes, and the reality is that an awful lot of those "off-the-wall fruitcakes" are recognized at great and talented artists decades or centuries after their deaths, while the imbecilic Art Gods of their own era who discounted their work as "not art" have been forgotten like bugs under the tires of history.

You also keep using words like "amateur," "professional," and "business." This sounds like you are using commercial and financial success as a measure of what is or is not art, which is a complete load - whether or not something is worth money has no bearing on whether it is or is not art, only on whether it is or is not intrinsically valuable.

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.

What you're describing, again, is a way of evaluating a piece of art's merits relative to another piece of art. It's not a way of determining what is or is not art.

Read over this article, which agrees with my point that "art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder."
http://www.metronews.ca/tech_news.asp?id=7962