Is it Art? Why?

[_ID_]

It is not art in my view as the photo is merely functional in its aims and that is to arouse. Technique and skill do not add up to art. Art of quality has a myriad aims and functions such as to alter and expand our perceptions as well as enlighten and educate, amongst many other things.

One can enter an endless debate about what is art or not, some say everything is art, to which one can pose the alternative, that nothing is art. I suppose it comes down to ones own opinion and in mine this doesn't constitute art.

who determines what art is? how do you define art?

To me it's art, why? because I think someone took the time to create the dispaly we see, they felt strongly enough about it to share it, they also added visual pieces to add to the picture such as a face in one corner of the picture to add elements of artistic composition.

To me, it's art.

V/R
IDCrewDawg

[Ozme52]

who determines what art is? how do you define art?

To me it's art, why? because I think someone took the time to create the dispaly we see, they felt strongly enough about it to share it, they also added visual pieces to add to the picture such as a face in one corner of the picture to add elements of artistic composition.

To me, it's art.

V/R
IDCrewDawg

So you're implying it's the intent that makes it art. Interesting. I can see how intent can be important, but when it comes to photography, you sometimes don't realize what you've captured until after you've viewed the picture(s).

So, for me, at the end of the day, it's not about the intent, it's about the content.