Art of any kind is intentional. It has purpose, a statement behind it perhaps, or it evokes emotions. It is crafted, too, in a way that contributes to its message or impact.

Some photographs have purposes completely separate from "being art." Maybe they are simple product illustrations or instructional photos for procedures or training materials. Some photographs are just random snapshots with no particular purpose other than a reasonable likeness of a person or a place or a thing. They may or may not be artful or considered art. They may be as documentary as forensic evidence, yet have no artistic intention whatsoever.

I think the context of "artistic photography" most often implies an artful purpose. The photographer sets out deliberately to compose and to capture and to craft an image that draws the viewer in and rivets attention, if only for a moment.

That's a funny one. I love it.

I fully agree, we have drifted into the realm of graphic art which, many individuals today want to call "photography."

After all, what is in a name?

My response to the original poster is, it is whatever the individual wants to make it. The only thing that counts, is if and when, you decide you want to enter a photo competition, then the only thing that counts are the rules and the judges.

As of today, photography and it's different genre, have drifted into many, many different branches. With the digital arena being what it is and manipulation being what it is, the definition is all over the map.....

For those of us who are old traditional photographers, from twenty, Thirty, or more years ago, we have a single different idea of what a photograph should be.... Today- anything goes and people think graphic, sandwiches-together - photoshop images is actually photography. But it's ... NOT!!

In closing, that is my two cents. For whatever it's worth. And, of course anyone and everyone is allowed to their own opinion. That is what makes America great.

Cheers
George Veazey