yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR

*"artistic vision provides the foundation"* That.

wayne barnett Loc: Grants Pass, Oregon

For those that think that images created with paint and brush is art, consider a set of paints and brushes laying on an easel. They will lay there until a human, usually, picks them up and uses the brushes to apply paint to a surface.

The same with a camera, Film or digital. The camera will not take a picture without a human intervening.

The reason a person uses any medium probably defines whether it is art or just an image. Many of us use a camera to just record events in our lives. Some of us us a camera to record images that we believe are artsy. How those images are 'developed' depends on the medium we are using. In the darkroom with film we developed the film to get the raw data to create a image on paper. Rare would it be that we just printed a shot without adjusting the exposure to the paper, considered the contrast, cropping of the unwanted parts of the original image or dodging and burning to adjust the image to what we wanted the final result to represent.

The same is true in the digital world, except it is all done in a computer. The camera and computer will not fix any of the issues with the recorded images until a human intervenes. I know this because I have left many images on my computer for months and they are still the same as when I copied them to the hard drive.

On this blog there are many examples of both types of photography, snapshots to record events and works of art. The great majority are of the first type. To produce the second type requires time, vision and technical skill. Not everyone chooses to develop these skill-sets, film or digital.

amyinsparta Loc: White county, TN

Define 'art'.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

You need a camera to start the process. There is nothing wrong with being a photographer. You can't enhance what it is and embellish the end result as art.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

You implied that photography is only electronic, which it isn't. You seem focused on the embellished part (processing), however, this has nothing to do with art or not. A lot of what defines art is purpose and intention. An image created as art is art from the very moment it is created. What is art is also not dependent upon craft. One can create a perfectly crafted image and have the most boring, uninteresting and meaningless image. Art is about combing aesthetics and message.

Also, a camera is not needed to produced photographs, only a light sensitive surface is required. https://hyperallergic.com/305997/a-history-of-photography-in-which-the-camera-is-absent/

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Photography and various equipment are just other media. One thing a true artist leans learns is use the media properly. If you try to use watercolor like oil paint, you face disaster. If someone with artistic intent and talent finds a Polaroid, old snap camera, or Hasselblad in their hands, that instrument becomes a part of the creation's possibilities.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Art: whatever is in the eye of the beholder.

Leitz Loc: Solms

A lot of painters would consider that a ridiculous statement.

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

Beauty, as well as art, is in the eye of the beholder as it is said. Critics and experts call this "art" and someone was willing to pay $110,400,000 for it at auction.

The next time you take a picture that you are not happy with it, regardless of why (even if you left the lens cap on), it surely has to be better than this highly acclaimed "art".

Sold for $110.4 Million Dollars

(Download)

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

The frame here is photography. For photographers, the photo is their medium in a general sense as the canvas is the medium for the painter and wood is the medium for a woodworker. Harumph harrumph.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Would you criticize the discovery of the Higgs Bosun by CERN as phony? Excuse me, but you do not know enough to claim the artwork you posted proves art is in the eye of the beholder. After a great deal of experience, you might be able to rationally make a critique. Another example. If, having never tasted martinis, you claim a martini made with a certain gin is terrible, your opinion is worthless to anyone but you.

Closer to the truth, would be "Art (or Beauty) is in the eyes of BEHOLDERS who know something."

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

gvarner, you're right and I could not agree with you. Photography (which is painting with light), conventional paintings, sculpture, woodwork, etc. can all take artistic talent and creativity. I am just expressing by this picture what is considered to be beauty and artistic to some is viewed as quite silly or absurd to others.

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

Should read, "could not agree with you more".

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

I like Basquiat's work. However, my biggest issue with the art world and the art market is the insane valuation of certain artists like Basquiat, Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons. This is more of an issue with our socio-economic system rather than an art issue.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Some of my cameras are not electronic at all and, with the exception of an added auxiliary flash unit, require no batteries whatsoever to operate. To claim that photography using those non-electronic cameras may qualify as art while photography using a digital camera does not qualify as art is, in my opinion, rather far-fetched. It all has the potential to be art.