JD750 wrote:
Some would say photography is art others would say it is not, that it is technique. Yet I suggest that, like the particle-wave duality in physics, photography is both art and technique. It is both left and right brained. Depending on the subject one or the other may dominate. So which is the harder part for you?
Neither, I do not care (signature).
Point of view:You can 'create' 'art' out of garbage and/or out of a skilled use of technology.
One can pretend to be an 'artist' (many do) but reality says otherwise, skilled or unskilled. This concerns everything and not exclusive to photography.
The problem is not about what 'it' is but how 'it' is perceived. From there, eye of the beholder and all that poopy stuff.
'Creativity' exists only in 'young' untrained minds that do not know any limit, are not influenced by habits, social mores and technology. Creativity is often accompanied with insanity because it does not fit any norm and refuses to accepts walls. Some lucky 'creators' do not 'grow up' and stay 'insane'. Most build their own walls to protect their insanity and become stale and boring inside the enclosure created* **. The lucky ones who stay free evolve in time or more likely than not their vision becomes more extreme with time.
The truly debiles*** in all that are those who try to associate themselves with the 'insane' using $$$ and influence to collect 'art'. A 'con artist' knows that and will create 'art' in order to access an acceptance and social status as 'artist', knowing they are frauds. Barnum infamous quote comes to mind here.
IRL I am more interested in 'fools' and 'originals' than anyone else. I owe them.
-----
* This creates folks only able to produce the same thing over and over, unable to move on, that is the case of 90% of 'originals'.
** Usually against 'outside elements' who want, demand conformity.
*** Old english = feeble (implies 'of mind' in this context).