jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (4 posts)

Are really breath-taking photos considered art?

  1. moiragallaga profile image87
    moiragallagaposted 5 years ago

    If it is, how would it be classify and define photos worthy to be considered notable works of art? With all these graphic programs and technology that allow photographers to 'touch up' their pictures, it would be hard to tell nowadays if a stunning photo was of a stunning view or captured in its natural state or essence, or whether it was an enhanced image. Also, what does it say about our culture - decline?

    1. recommend1 profile image71
      recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No.  The same thing has been said with every advance in the materials used in art.  To be art the photo does not need to be breathtaking, it needs to say something more than the face value of the picture itself, and touched up or re-worked is not important.

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I would have to agree with you. If talent can produce outcome it is outcome that is important not means. Means will always be changing.

  2. DonnaCSmith profile image83
    DonnaCSmithposted 5 years ago

    the term used is "fine art photograph"