Quote Originally Posted by Worker 11811 View Post
I see a two-pronged answer.
1) What is the photographer/creator's intent?
2) What is the viewer/public's perception?

A photograph of a factory on fire would be considered journalism if the photographer's intent was to document the incident but if he made the photo with a different mindset, the very same photo would be considered art. On the other hand, if the photo was printed beneath a headline in a newspaper, Acme corporation on fire!" the public would perceive it differently than if it was framed and hung in a gallery.

Does the medium in which the photo is presented affect how viewers perceive it?
To a degree, I think it does but I think the medium is only the intermediary which conveys intent.

On the other hand, the very same Polaroid or Instax photograph would be perceived as having a different intent depending on whether it was presented in a pile on a coffee table, whether it was mounted in a scrapbook or whether it was framed and hung on the wall.

So, yes, I think a Polaroid CAN BE considered art if the photographer presents it in a way that conveys artistic intent to the viewer.
Yes, I do agree that intention as well as presentation is important to determine whether a photo can be considered fine art but then that brings us to the question, instant film to me for now (but that is slowly changing with what has been presented earlier) is something that is spontaneous rather than planned in regards to taking the shots as well as its presentation.

Perhaps just as photography was accepted as one of the many medium that can be considered fine art, maybe instant film too will soon be accept as well, albeit in a limited fashion considered its one off ness