I did not know that, interesting. Perhaps that's where my inclination is rooted.
But as I said, it's just my opinion. It's not important nor worth the argument. It neither detracts from my enjoyment of photography or my enjoyment of other people's pictures. Let's get back to Pavel's original premise of the thread.
Macroramphosis: Yes, back in Art Class almost 3 decades ago an old art professor claimed, back in the 1920s traditional artist opposed other forms of art being labeled art, specifically Photography. And that seems to hold true for many traditionalist today. Looking back at the 20s and 30s we see a country go from top of the world to the great depression, as well as an art world that had been through 8 years of the ART RENNESANSE, followed by the great depression (1930s).
Aaahhh, but in a sense we ARE still dealing with my premise. I fundamentally believe that anything that meets the acceptable definition of art is art, WHETHER IT WAS PRODUCED USEING A BRUSH, A CAMERA OR A PNEUMATIC DRILL. Creativity and desire to express something personal is at the root of most of the dozens of definitions I found on the internet. I believe that being a creative photographer is therefore a bigger half of what it takes to be an artist and THAT is the reason why this issue matters to me. I am still unclear about what is your definition of art and why is photography failing this definition. Do you not accept that creativity is at the route of what is art? Do you not accept that photos can be creative?
With all respect to your mom, which I do not know and she is no doubt a fine artist, art world is littered with now laughable rejections of whole segments of art, including the impressionists, bebop (the name Louis Armstrong derogatorily gave to Dizzy Gillespie's music and it stuck), Fauvism ("wild beasts") etc. It is normal that artists fail to respect art forms that they do not practice themselves it is common that other artists break the arbitrary barriers these misconceptions create and which become odd and laughable over time.
For me this issue matters a lot because once you are technically competent and once you can compose in a traditional graphic design style (basically craft tools and not art), you need to become creative, to use composition and technical tools to express not only your emotions, but also your thoughts, views, your sense of humour and anything else you wish to communicate. This to me is at the very core of what I am interested in. I am competent technically and I can compose using the graphic design tools. Doing just that would be like treading water and continually repeating myself. I would have given up on photography years ago if that was all there is. It would bore me to death. Being creative, trying to express my sense of aesthetics, my thoughts, my emotions and my sense of humour provides endless challenges to me with each image I try to create. That is what I came to this forum with and it is the creativity in photography that is the focus of ALL my posts in Creative Corner of this forum. That is indeed the original premise of my post and indeed all my posts in the Creative Corner.
Pavel M, you're not alone in todays modern digital world of art and photography. I totally agree that "anything that meets the acceptable definition of art is art, WHETHER IT WAS PRODUCED USEING A BRUSH, A CAMERA OR A PNEUMATIC DRILL. Creativity and desire to express something personal is at the root of most of the dozens of definitions I found on the internet.", Thanks for the insight and interesting examples.
Being a hands-on trial & error type, I've gotten into a lot of different hobbies in my days. I've done live music gigs (covers, original songs and studio recordings). I attempted woodcraft, clay sculpture at a young age, did acrylic, and watercolor paintings and literature in school, and did not find any true passion in these traditional art activities. I had a lot of fun with music for many years, but now wildlife video has become my new passion. Nevertheless, my point is, having a passion for something plays a big part in how far someone can take their art craft.
Pavel you're much like Kobe Bryant, and YouTube's Professor (basketball kid). Success, skills, knowledge, ability, passion, and relentless hard work plays a huge part in developing the ability to do Art Photography. The style of Art Photography is defined, as are all other styles of photography. I can truly say, I'm no Art Photographer: But, I still get huge inspiration from great Art Photographers like you and others.
. Did you understand what I wrote? Do you agree? I wrote it based on my limited grasp of your post
