Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Consider the cat. When looking at a photograph, or a painting, one wants to 
> understand the intentions of the artists (not always clear, I agree). Why 
> did he do this? Or why did he not do that?

  Just because *you* don't understand the photo doesn't mean that it's
not a valid piece of art.

  I'd say that if a photograph evokes emotion or thought, that's art.
And this photograph has clearly succeeded in exactly that.

  (One could argue that if a photograph only evokes thought about the
artistic value of the photograph itself, rather than what the photograph
is trying to convey, that's not art. Once again, that's a subjective
question of opinion. One could even call that "meta-art".)

Post a reply to this message