What do you consider photography? Is it any photograph, or does it have to have artistic intent or merit behind it? There has been a lot of debate about this on DA. There it's because people are angry that people can get away with posting snapshots of pierced nipples and women with their legs open. I'm with them 100%, but I'm more interested in the more broad question of what constitutes photography as art vs. just snapping pictures, or if there's any distinction.

Personally, I don't think there's any one right or wrong answer, because (as with any art) the line between "art" and "not art" is very hazy. "Not art" is sort of like porn in my mind in that "I'll know it when I see it". Of course, this is really bad for people who moderate art communities like Deviantart. Should there be an attempt to filter snapshots from art photos? (Leaving aside the issue of porn vs. art completely.) I know Side7 doesn't really have this problem, but it's an issue most everywhere else.

I know what I think, but I'm curious to hear other opinions on these questions opens the floor

Actually, this is an issue that Side 7 is going to have to deal with, soon enough. v4 will allow photography. However, we have defined very specific photographic categories. Additionally, we've enlisted the aid of a professional photographer to help us develop our rules about acceptable vs unacceptable photography.

Honestly, that's the real crux here: what's acceptable on a site versus what's not acceptable. Our goal is more to avoid "here's a blurry picture of my dog's nose I took with a disposable camera" type shots. Additionally, tasteful photographed nudes will be allowed on Side 7, as long as they maintain the same kinds of standards as artistic nudes that are illustrated: e.g., no sexual content, implied or explicit.

Photographs that focus on the genitals will likely end up falling into the realm of "sexual" content for the sole purpose of prevention of abuse.

The problem faced by any art gallery is that what is art to one person won't necessarily be art to the next. Gallery moderators and admins have to remove their own subjective opinions of what art is from their decisions on rules, and how to maintain a status quo on the site. Allowing objectiveness to give way to subjectiveness opens to the doors to favoritism, inconsistent rulings on infractions, and worse.

-- BK

BK said it best, and yes, there is no one right or wrong answer. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the only definitive difference between photography as art and photography as snapshots is the intention of the photographer. Even that can get tricky, as in my case in which most of the artistic photographs I take are candid without any prior consideration when I'm taking the picture.

The question is, does the photographer him/herself look at the picture as art, or just "hay this looks kewl". It's something I had to address myself when I began posting my photography online, and even still I wonder about some of the images I post. Intention, regrettably, is not so easy to gauge from a moderating standpoint.

There are experimental photographers out there, who set up a scene with the intent on photographing it in an artistic way. They might experiment with lighting, composition, filters, or extra long exposures.

There are actual rules that define an artistic piece. Unfortunately, what looks "cool" might not fall within those artistic guidelines. Doesn't mean it's not cool or neat-looking; it just means that it fails to meet certain standards in the art world, such as "the rule of thirds" for composition.

At Side 7, we encourage the use of such artistic standards in order to create artistic photography... however, it's not going to be the basis of our rules for posting photos on the site.

-- BK

See, that's the kind of thing I'm concerned about with my photography. I don't really know if something I really want to share as an artistic piece really counts as art, especially when I look at some other people's photography, which puts mine to shame. I don't know how to set up a scene, so the only way I get what I feel are artistic shots is to take a picture when I see something that looks artistic, and I just can't be sure if it really is or not.

It's kind of the same way I feel about scrapbooking. It seems like it should just be fun and heartfelt, but with the way it's handled in today's society, what with scrapbooking classes, entire stores devoted to supplies, and all sorts of scrapbooking-specific tools and such, I feel intimidated from doing anything because I'd feel like I'm doing it wrong.

Keep in mind that with practice comes experience, and experience will help you make those determinations between "good," "bad," "artistic," and "non-artistic." Also keep in mind that those are all subjective terms. I've drawn images before that I thought were horrible, but someone else really liked.

The worst thing you can do is compare your work to other people's works in terms of quality. Rather, you should look at other people's works, and see what they did that makes the piece shine. Compare and contrast traits between your works and others', to see what you could have done to improve the piece, and what you feel you did right.

If you constantly say, "That person is great. I'll never get to be that good," you're right. You're not going to reach that goal. We are our own worst critics, and it is very easy for us to look down on our own work, while looking up at others' work. Concentrate more on the ways in which you can improve your work, and practice those methods.

-- BK

I wholeheartedly agree, and it's something I struggle with... well, almost constantly. There's one person I know in particular who takes some really amazing photographs, and even not understanding why, they're beautiful to me. I have been trying to look at them from a different angle lately, and while I can notice certain traits about this person's photography that really make it stand out to me, I just don't have the experience to find those things when I'm looking to take an artistic photograph myself.

I am also limited a bit by my camera. One thing that really shines in the aforementioned photos is focus and use of blur, which I can't control with my camera's autofocus. Works great for capturing memories, not so much for an artistic background blur.

Ultimately, I'm not really too concerned about it. If I was really serious about looking into photography, I think what I need most - other than a new camera - is training, and I just don't want to take the time and money for that. As much as I wish I would be, I understand that I can't be the best at everything. I'm just concerned that the pictures I have taken that I feel are really pleasing to look at aren't actually artistic.