I don't think that " photography that is intended to be viewed, and might reasonably be expected to be on a wall" defines it well enough. There is all sorts of photography that will fulfill these criterior.
For the sake of discussion. Should FA include my photo of my cat, favourite fishing spot ... great uncle Jock Macdougle?
Many think it should be absolutely pure/meaningful/angst-ridden from the emancipated heart and graft of years at the technique grindstone for naught in commercial compromise. I have met people like this who after a lifetime of pure, meaningful, angst ridden technical graft, they add unsold and extremely unsatisfied to the list.
So perhaps it is somewhere in between. That is, something that someone else wishes to own so much they'll pay money for it. If you're lucky they want to buy for the reasons you made the image.
If it is this, then I suggest the point at which art is regarded as Fine Art is defined by the art market. when as D.G. put it so eloquently earlier, it can be defined legitimately in the tax system.
Last edited by John McCallum; 09-14-2006 at 02:26 AM. Click to view previous post history.