Wikipedia suggests that creating art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, sculpture, paintings and photography.
This definition does not require art to be “pretty” or “artistic”, but it does say that the elements must have been deliberately arranged. Is placing two rocks on top of each other art? Yes, according to this definition it is art if that was done deliberately in order to affect the viewer’s senses. Is graffiti art? If the purpose is to get the viewer to react emotionally (be that with joy or anger), then, yes, according to this definition it is art.
I argue that a snapshot, where the photographer has not given any thought to composition, exposure or the expected picture is not art. Even if it turns out to be a very pretty snapshot. Even if it turns out to be exactly identical to a photograph that was carefully composed, framed and previsualised. Even if it turns out to be identical to a piece of art. It is not the result itself that matters, it is the process that created the result that matters. It is the imaginary vision.
What do you think?