robbie. It is interesting that only you have ressponded in negative terms. You are putting your assuptions onto my shoulders and then accusing me. I do not need to defend myself for my opinions. Just read again what I have written very carefully.
thoramay.
I am truely pleased, with one exception, the way this debate has been conducted in such a civil manner.

Robbie. I started this thread asking for a concensus on what is art in photography. I also asked that we read comments carefully and also respond carefully. Your statement that my reference to my grandson was ridiculous is offensive and beyond the standard that we hold with on this forum. Do please read what I have written carefully. The points I made are valid. Disagree if you may but hold to what I have written. A photograph will never evoke the same emotional response as the real thing. Being picky that paintings are not 3d leaves me wondering whether you grasped that I was refering to all art in galleries.
Seeking a general agreement on this issue will never haappen if we fail to give space to opinions that are different from our own.
I have enjoyed all the comments but your own comes over somewhat dogmatic, but that is your style and I will not quarrel with you on this.
Because I have no firm opinion of my own regarding art in phoptography, I was hoping for input. I am no wiser.
Thoramay

Most art forms are seen in three dimension, in context and from many different viewpoints. Photography is seen as a flat image. It cannot evoke a similar response. That, to me, is the important difference and why I feel that a discussion of an opera house misses this vital difference. Defining art through photography must encompass this element.
Similarly, viewing at a gallery is a world away from viewing those images from a flat screen. It cannot evoke the same response. It might be argued that these images stop becoming art when shown on the flat screen because they do not evoke the same emotional response as when seen in reality.
I know the different response I have in seeing a photograph of my grandson and then seeing him in the flesh.
Being contentious, do I create art when I photograph a recognised work of art, or do I simply take a photograph?
thoramay

Robbie..You miss my point, or I have not made myself clear. Pictures depicting the whole gammit of art when viewed on the web from an art gallery are a poor reflection of the real thing which needs to be seen from many angles and from a distance to appreciate the whole. Not so photographs which is what this thread started out as. Art in photography is an altogether different medium to most other art forms. Taking issue on whether an opera house is art, in my opinion, does not address the fundamental difference that art is in photography, but I am being picky because you guys are obviously enjoying the discussion. I just hope that you can return to the thread once in a while for my education.
thoramay.:

Guys. As much as I am enjoying all this, it rather strays from my request that we define art in photography. Do we need to stray into architecture and painting to reach some deffinition?? Maybe, but lets all read carefully what is being written and digest it before we dash into a reply. Let us also be careful in our replies. I think Pentaxophile has challenged me most with his deffinition that applies to photography very well.
thoramay

Robbie and Tim. How do you see art in photography? I share Tim's view of so called art generally but my interest is in how we create art through photography. It does not have such a wide application of some otehr art forms. I simply want to know if I creatre art or just take pictures!1
thoramay

I guessed as much that there was a story behing those pics and I kinda follow her anguish that animals are the casualty of our modern progress. Clearly, she has a heart for the whole of the natural world. It is a pity that her titles do not explain this. I can look at the pictures now in an entirely different light and see the irony in her work. I do not think I have the courage to express my photography in this challenging way but I have an empathy with her aims to challenge and provoke thought. Provocation, I suspect, is part of art.
thoramay

They disturb me. The use of the animals somehow intrude on the picture but at least I can see that the photographer is making a personal statement, inviting you into his picture, challenging you to understand what it is he is intending, almost, in one sense, attempting to shock those who treat animals as though they have personalities, human attributes. In itself, a dead animal does not shock me, using it in a picture seems, somewhat superfluous. The artist could have given the pictures a title that could, perhaps, help us to understand what the picture means overall. At least, I can understand these pics being classed as art.
Thoramay.

Stephan. I will be frank. They do nothing for me, not even a second glance at each one, not even wondering how he arrived at the title. How were the images done? A photograph? painting with colours? post processing? There is nothing in these pictures that echo real life to me. Just occassionally you might catch a sky like this. Where in this universe did he capture these images? It simply explains my lack of appreciation of art as difined by the art fraternity., I shall never do art if this is how it must be. Thanks for educating me.
Thoramay

Some of the pictures I see defined as art leaves me cold. I don't know how that agrees with the deffinition of effecting the emotions.

Stefan. To reach London on a day trip will take over four hours. Travelling off peak fares means reaching London after midday and leaving two hours later arriving home past six in the evening, a twelve hour day for a two hour viewing, and that without stopping to eat!! My constitution would not tolerate such energy expenditure.

The major benefit of the forum is to tap into other people's experiences and to share views. I still feel there is a simpler deffinition of art in relation to photography, or is art indefinable as a subject in that art resides in the mind of the viewer.
thoramay.