Yes sir, I do believe it is art. But I also believe that it is the photographer's duty to give context to their work. It is too easy to take a picture, find someone who will sell the photo in their shop, and then be considered an "artist".Case in point: Corey Arnold. http://www.coreyfishes.com/Corey is his pictures. It is who he is. You have a person who grew up fishing, and then expressed himself through that.
I am not an expert when it comes to the history of photography, but I am willing to bet that Ansel took amazing photos because he cared.
To me, that is context. You care about something, so then you make something.
Every person's effort means something. Does it deserve to be selling for hundreds of dollars at a gallery on Canyon Road? I don't know. What I do know is that if you are an artist who really gives a shit about what you create, work harder at getting on those walls. If not, it will be replaced by motel art.
Jesus, dude. Ansel Adams was one of the greatest print makers of all time. You think any of his stuff came out of the camera looking like that? The guy was the very definition of consciously shaping tonality and altering environments in the darkroom to fit his vision. If you're going to argue a jackass point of view, at least spend a few minutes on wikipedia and google before you hit send.
Thanks for sharing, GS*
Here's a poser, dear readers: Can advertising be art in and of itself? Some advertisers say that it is. What do you think?