The intention of the photographer

<blockquote>

<p>I highly recommend reading some Kierkegaard, Kant, Russel and Santayana and making the effort to understand why their writings take more than one line. Then come back and post in line with the spirit of the forum.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jeff, So how many lines must one write before it is considered to be "philosophical" and "in line with the spirit of the forum"?</p>

<p>This whole notion off intention is why I reject the definition of art given by Warhol (the one in the adjacent thread which was unfortunately closed down).</p>

<p>Warhol seeks to define art using some sort of 'threshold' of quality. "Art is something that is done well, like if you cook well" he says.</p>

<p>To me this misses the point.</p>

<p>If the photographer's intention is to express or evoke something in my viewer then that is art. However badly it is done - and certainly it may not be good art.</p>

<p>If the photographer's intention is to literally, factually document then that is not art. A wonderfully taken dentist's photo of teeth, or a photo of a car taken for insurance purposes or a passport photo, may fit within Warhol's definition, but the intention was never to communicate anything.</p>

<p>Anyway all this to say that, to me, the notions of intention and art are inseparably linked.</p>