Quote Originally Posted by BradS
I found myself engaged in a conversation with somebody in the Administrative side of the company at lunch today. Her educational background was in Art History. The conversation turned from the usual topics to my interest in Photogrpahy....anyway, at some point she asserted that Photography is not art. She said that it is not considered art because, in essence, there is no artist. The final result was simply a matter of chemisty and physics.

Now, I am no artist. I don't even aspire to be an artist...but, try as I might to convice her otherwise, she steadfastly maintained that Photography is not art...in some kind of academic sense, I guess.

Thoughts?
Brad, buddy, one of the first laws of debate and logic is to use their own arguments against them. For someone to be able to tell you that photography is not art, they first have to define for you what is art. Let her struggle with that for a while.

OTOH I am not surprised. This opinion is very prevalent. The beleif that all that is required to be a photographer is the ability to pick up a camera and press the shutter, the rest is just mechanics.

I wonder why is it that "non art" is being shown in museums and galleries......