Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

If winterrose is as sane as you Doc ..... we'll have to watch you more closely

Atomicmechanic Loc: Corinth New York

I agree with you for the most part. However, I have taken simple pictures for just myself, especially nature, and others were astounded by them. At the time, they were just pictures or snapshots taken quickly. I do agree that Art is something that is envisioned by the Artist or Photographer, and then recreated as something tangible. I pride myself in not using any type of digital enhancements for my pictures or art. Irregardless of how much money someone spends on photographic equipment, they still need to have an Eye for Creativity. But, I don't want to discourage anyone from taking their digital camera, taking a lot of pictures, with almost instant gratification, and developing an eye or a perspective for better photography. Keep shooting, keep learning, and ask questions, or ask for help.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

A wise decision, Grasshopper!

ameriroc

I once read a quote,"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." unquote. can we then say that art is what our eye sees as art, on an individual basis? Keeping in mind that all art is not beautiful. When someone says this is my art it simply means that to that particular individual that is what he per sieves to be art. And around & around we go.:)

Sunwriter Loc: High Plains

No, I don't think we can say that. I suppose you CAN call anything you want Art, for yourself. But it's probably not going to stand the scrutiny of standards, craft, insightfulness, etc. that most people employ when they designate something as "art."