My answer is : How the hell would I know?
It’s an interesting question that I read in a photography forum. Some excerpts from that question …
Competent photography, we argued, could be attained by most people. As a competent photographer you could take some nice pictures of sunsets, supermodels on beaches or race cars. You may know all there is to know about tripods, lenses, ISO numbers and the like – and be able to put that information to good use “out in the field”, as it were. A competent photographer could show their photos to people and elicit comments like “Wow – that’s nice!”
But what defines a “photographer as an artist”?
We all know what that means (I think) – the photographs transcend the normal “here is a picture of something” or “this is what I saw once” type function, and start becoming something else.
I am unsure of where to draw the line between “artistic” and “pretentious” when it comes to such things – and am also unsure as to whether “photos as art” necessarily have to prove a point, as it were.
So what’s your take on this?