When is art not art?

Now I’m not going to get into this one. I’ve never been a big supporter of the idea of labeling any photographic works as “art” or “fine art” or my favorite of all time “fine art nude”. In fact I’ll be honest and tell you that I have no idea what art is!

Years ago it was a common belief that photography couldn’t be art because it was to easy. Everyone could take a photograph, so photography couldn’t be art. Then if you take that tack, my argument would be that I have a welder and a pile of scrap metal in my shed, which in a few short minutes I could turn into a sculpture, an art form supported by those early detractors of photography as an art. I can however, guarantee that my sculpture would not be art.

So why bring up this subject again? A post on one of the photographic forums recently, once again arguing the case for photography to be considered art. The discussion trotted out all the old arguments for and against, with the exception of one lone voice, who in a tirade of venomous abuse which I won’t repeat here, declared that any photographer charging for his work couldn’t call himself and artist, because the act of accepting money for art, stopped the works from being art.