How far is "too far" in the creation of art?

[JSPhoto]

I shoot college sports on the side. If I consider that I get calls from media people to go to certain sport events because they're not happy with what they've received so far, or need specific shots, I think I must be doing something right Yet I stuggle seing this as art, even though I think they're good compositions. And, my favorite creatvie shots are never picked for publication!
Mike

Mike,

Interesting comments, especially since the sports editor I deal with the most calls my work art. They almost always use the ones I point out, and in most cases I could just send them those and nothing else. There are odd times those when they use the mundane shots over the spectacular jusat because of who is in the shot.

JS

[darkman]

Mike,

Interesting comments, especially since the sports editor I deal with the most calls my work art. They almost always use the ones I point out, and in most cases I could just send them those and nothing else. There are odd times those when they use the mundane shots over the spectacular jusat because of who is in the shot.

JS

Hi JS,

I'm not sure you took my comments in the context it was written in. Nor do I understand what your point is? I can generally tell what images the sports editors like. I know when to supply "mundane" shots because they'll want a picture of a person I didn't get a "spectacular" shot of.

Of course it's art. Almost any click of the shutter is IMO. So, yes, there's an element of art to it, but to me it's not "art." I liken it to comparing craft to folk art to fine art and all the shades in between. To me, sports photography falls in the craft to folk art range. Converseley, I 100% disagree with Adina saying her portrait work isn't art. It's just a different viewpoint. There's no correct answer.

mike