Excellent point. You cannot, unless the photographer states.
If a photographer states: "Look at my sun burst image"...well you know it is just a craft image.
If someone starts by describing the camera, the lens, and the strobes, you know if is a craft image.
I posted, at the beginning of this thread, an image of two divers.. it was for a scuba class... clearly just a craft image.
The grey area was the nudibranch image...that was an image to show the effect of the gulf oil spill (part of a whole series of images). The oil and surfactant sank to the bottom, killing lots of small fish and shrimp...then algae grew on it, and the nudibranchs thrived on the algae. The objective of the image was to capture both the algae and the feeding nudibranchs..
Is that art? Don't know, I was trying to communicate something, so it is clearly not a craft image. But is photo journalism art?
Regarding who gets to define art. I guess in the "me" generation, everyone can make up their own definition, but there are some common threads thru history that would rather limit the options. I don't think anyone that sees the statue of David the first time says "wow, nice marble carving craft", or looks at the Mona Lisa and says "Great use of red iron oxide". So the instant one sees an image and thinks "nice lighting" or "nice composition", it is now a craft image.
I don't know if you have seen the original of this, but please take a second to look at it:
I know this image really well, it is the one we had to reproduce in a class.
To be honest, knowing how it was done, in this small size it looks over processed.. it does not in a larger size with greater dynamic range.
It is two 4 x 5 images put together with a ton of very crafty work done to make it look like that.
Just making all the tools to dodge the print took almost a day.
The objective was to make an image that looked dramatic and larger then life...it is filled with all sorts of technic's, but I have never heard anyone looking at it even mention it. I think that is the difference between art and craft.
Nothing wrong with craft images, they can have more value that a lot of well thought out art images. They are easier to understand and for most people, are something they can relate to. The issue is not the images, it is the people that shoot them and believe every image taken should look like that. Subtle play of lighting, delicate balance between strobes and natural lighting are all killed in favor of a single point of view.
I'm with Bill on this. Maybe I'm not smart enough to understand, but I do know what I like and what I don't like. Whether it is "art" or not then is really somewhat irrelevant.
However, what still is somewhat at odds in my mind is that if "art is in the eye of the beholder", how is it possible for one to define what is art and what isn't.
"Back to the issue of how you know if it is art, it starts with the photographer taking that image to say something...if it is just a picture using a method or of something big, it is not art"
When you label something as not "art", you are assuming then it is not trying to convey a message, and is just to illustrate a method or technique. How do you know that it is not trying to convey a message? Since each individual has his or her own interpretation of any image and what that image might convey or represent, who is to say it is "art" or not "art"?
You also allude to those with credentials being the ones to define art. "I would never say I know the answer, but I do know how Minor and Edward Weston and Ansel Adams defined it, it unless someone with better credentials comes up with a better definition, will use that."
Does that mean that unless you have credentials you're not able or as qualified to define art? If art is truly in the eye of the beholder, credentials would be irrelevant as each individual would decide for him or herself.
Maybe someone more trained in art can clear this up. I clearly do not have the credentials.
