I was recently asked for my views on what makes a photograph "art"
I don't like the expression "Art". It seems like anyone can pass off almost anything as art nowadays. Art has become a worthless phrase that anyone can place on anything in an attempt to give it value.
But art is subjective, everyone has a different idea as to what constitutes "Art", based on their personal taste and therefore the phrase is probably worthless. I suppose like love, you could say that "Art" is in the eye of the beholder...or not.
In part I think of "Art" as being a "creative Interpretation". A shot that is a snap taken on holiday is a "snapshot", An image that is taken specifically to be an accurate rendition of a scene or to document is a "photographic record". I think an image only crosses the threshold of "Art" where premeditated skill and intentional creative interpretation is employed during the capture, where there is a concept.
I recently saw the results of this years "Taylor Wessing" prize and was rendered speechless by both the winner and the second place finalists shot, Third place was not so bad but the shot that won was a typical example of "Worthless" so called "art", a snapshot with a "lamely convoluted" concept. In a world where so many photographers produce such beautiful thought provoking images it proved to me at least, that there are many in positions to "judge" Art, that actually show no evidence of understanding it whatsoever.
"Art" is a concept that has been subverted by the talentless and pretentious and for me at least, has lost both it's meaning and value.