people react to things differently depending on their life-experience.
while a camera is able to record things on film ( or paper ) and while
the image recorded may resonate with some, it will never resonate with everyone.
a lot of "art" i see every day in books magazines, galleries &C
means something to someone, but because i haven't had some sort of similar
experience that links me, i can't relate and it is lost on me.
sometimes landscape photography is like that (to me) i can not see beyond
the illustration part, because i have no life expereince that connects me to
the landscapes shown ... other than --- that place looks - calm, nice, hellish, ...

i am not sure if what i said makes any sense at all
...


It's not Art because you can't step up to it with the knowledge or experiences to make it so or is it the fault of the person who made the Art? Maybe it's not Art. Brett Weston was aware that laymen and workers "got" it and were thrilled about his photographs and that was more important to him than some so called art expert.

Maybe it's not "High Art" then. It's what Ansel Adams called "scenery". It's just "scenery" because it fails and does not become ......... And that is the something that is hard to pin down. Even Adams squirmed all over about it and didn't or couldn't make the defining statement.