I thought the defintion of art was something, either a sculpture, painting or something else which raised the spirit of the viewer, to which you could probably add poetry and writing as well as photography I think.

btw, what does anything of this ?

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-...ory=54&group=4

He wins wildlife photographer of the year with image an of a snow leopard and the camera,s were fired automatically when he wasnt even on the scene ! he was miles away, so did he take the image or did the camera ? shouldnt the camera have been awarded the photographer of the year ? do you see what Im getting at ? he was detached from the scene, he had cameras set up for months all over the region and eventually by the law of averages he was bound to capture an image, he wasnt there, or am I just being a bit pedantic

Stewie - Technically you're not wrong, but even that description is too restrictive. The design council define Art as:

Utilising various media, art reflects a form of self-expression by the artist. Art is the result of how the artist personally views the subject matter.

on the other hand - Google gives 53,600,000 definitions of Art

Stanford Philosophical perspectives tell us it is pointless trying to define art, it is too subjective.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/

What are we to believe - if anything? Personally, I just know what I like.

Yep, you,re right, I mean ultimately you either like it or not, for instance I think Shakespeare is massivley over rated ,I prefer Dickens, but who am I to judge ? btw I went to the Tate in Liverpool some years ago, just didnt get it, but I went to the Louvre 3 yrs ago and absolutley loved it so maybe perceptions of art change with age and experience.

People pick up a camera for many different reasons. I used to photograph weddings to build my collection of equipment and supplies. I also photographed children because I think at 2-4 years old they are precious, innocent & beautiful. Most of what I photographed is hanging on someone's wall as it was done for money.

Now I photograph for me. If I'm not happy with a photo & feel it can't be made appealing with post processing I delete it. A few of my landscapes are again hanging on people's walls but I gave these away freely.

Because I now shoot just for my pleasure I tend to be more creative, more artistic. Digital photography costs very little after the initial equipment and software are purchased so I shoot a lot more frames.

Because there's no longer any pressure to instantly produce I enjoy the hobby much more than the profession. I wish I had the means to professionally frame and hang more of my favorites. For now, I'm satisfied in knowing "I shot that"!

I think Art is personal. there are fine artists at uni that I think are ludicrous, I hate their work, but others I think are fabulous even if I don't "get things" there is a lot to be said for logic being a necessity in this lifetime. I love the fact that I don't always understand.

Take for example Duchamp and his creation of fountain:
"Fountain is perhaps the best known because the symbolic meaning of the toilet takes the conceptual challenge posed by the readymades to their most visceral extreme.

Other opinions of the work are generally very critical, stating that skill is an important factor in making real art, and "Fountain" required little to no skill to create." - who is right, the ones who think it is art or the ones that think that it isn't?

I don't like it, but thats my personal opinion.

How about the resident artist for the Imperial war museum's depiction of the war in Afghanistan Paul Seawright? he turns the landscapes left behind after war into the picturesque. Only when the photograph is explained do you look at it and realise that the landscape you're looking at may have been somewhere where people have died, or mines are hidden so the area will never be able to be walked upon. Is that right, to turn something as horrendous as war into a piece of art as apposed to a factual depiction? Someone obviously thought it was art!

Dickens over Shakespeare? Can't see it myself he he