What do you think when some people say "Photography is NOT an art"?

I wouldn't argue with any person who says that, because everyone has their own perception of what art truly is. If they have seen the most emotion capturing and majestic photos in the world, and they still think it is not an art, then so be it. But then the question is, what ARE the most emotion filled and majestic photos in the world? It all depends on the spectator.

In my (minimal) experience It can be difficult to capture exactly what you want unless you have the proper equipment, but that doesn't mean you can't be a photographer if you don't have all the equipment you want/can't afford. For example, if you want to take a picture of the moon and get every minuscule detail, it'd be difficult to get that with a point-and-shoot or a camera phone. However, that doesn't mean you can't be satisfied with your images using a cheaper camera.

More experienced photographers (and even some inexperienced ones!) get all riled up when they see photos that are claimed "professional photography" (youarenotaphotographer.com is a humorous example) when the photographer clearly is not aware of the technicalities of a DSLR camera, and just go to best buy one day and call themselves a professional. My opinion on that is completely objective, by the way. I don't really know how I feel or what to say about that other than if their customers are happy, then so be it!

"Photographer" should be a word used to describe anyone who is taking a photo, but the usage is highly controversial when it comes to "amateurs" vs. "professionals". Some people may say that you are only a photographer if you have taken classes, or if you are making money in a business, or maybe only if you have done it for years. The truth is that there is no real answer to your last two questions because anyone has the ability to be a photographer, and anyone has the ability to challenge that (self-proclaimed or earned) title.

My ultimate answer is that anyone should do what they want with a camera, and if they are having fun at it then who cares if they are a "photographer" or not? There will always be someone better than you, and there will always be someone worse, because there is no official line where your photography stands. Everyone's opinions will always vary, no matter what.

I think they assume that a photographer just takes a picture.

The truth is far from that.

When I make a photo I start at the idea, then work out how I want to do it, and make it happen. The actual moment when the shutter clicks is actually somewhat of a let down, because all the fun is in creating the idea and figuring out how to do it. I don't look at the picture after I take it, and am suddenly surprised how it looks. I know exactly how it will look before the camera is ever picked up. Even when I make a composite, I still start at what I want to do and know beforehand what I want it to look like.

We on the pro end do this all the time even without realizing it. If I was shooting a basketball game, I know I will need a long lens. I know the best place for me sit on the arena floor will be, and so on. I was the guest for John Lebya from The Denver Post a few years ago. He brought me along to learn how to shoot a basketball game. He set up cameras under the net (attached to the poll) set up crowd cameras, and so on, he could fire all the cameras using his Pocket Wizard and not have to leave his primary spot where he used a long fast lens. Of course this has little to do with art, but that he had to preconceive his shots and while not being exact, knew what they would look like.

Anybody can take a picture, it is the professional that knows what it will look like before hand and that is the art of photography.

I can shut people like that up very quickly. I ask them how many art galleries they own. Of course they will say none. I tell them I have had photography exhibited in art galleries across the US and now in Europe. I consider the opinion of art gallery owners to be far more valid than the common man in the street.

THAT takes care of the issue for me.

steve

http://keerok-potd.blogspot.com/2011/06/sunset-at-...

This was not taken with a dSLR. It doesn't matter what camera you use if you know what you're doing. You can make photography an art or just a plain recording of event depending on how you go about it.

What if you are simply going for the most accurate and direct visual 2D reproduction of something that exists?

I believe that is what cameras are meant to be used for.

If it's technical/scientific, and just meant to be a 1:1 ratio with the real thing, is it still art?

What if pictures are used for scientific purposes?

If it's about "accuracy" and just "accuracy", is it still art then?

It used to bother me.

Now I could care less. I make enough money as a photographer, that I no longer feel the need to justify what I do to anyone.

Anything done with passion is an art ! Whether it is cooking or painting or 'taking' photographs.

I read them the definition of art:

the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

everyone has their opinion... :D

personally i don't think Damien Hirst is an artist, but then i'm not the bonehead paying him a fortune for his crap...

Some people have no perception.