This seems to come up often. For me, it's a big discussion about the so-called subjectivity of art. Some claim that no one can tell someone else what is art. Each of us gets to decide. I disagree with that. I think there are cultural, historical, and social determinants of art as well as various qualities that works of art exhibit, whether I happen to like or recognize them or not. There's room for a general discussion, but those tend not to go anywhere, since we wind up arguing over the definition of art, which is almost impossible to come up with in a post on the Internet. IMO, it takes a lot of discussion to even come close to defining what art is and it's often futile. What I'm interested in, though, are photographs or photographers you recognize as good but don't like. And I don't mean that in the sense that you may be moved by it, but because it's effectively disturbing you wouldn't say you like it. I mean that it really doesn't reach you, does nothing for you personally, but yet you recognize that it's a good photo and you can understand why it would reach others. Likewise, are there works of art or renowned artists who you accept as artists but who don't move you at all, whose work you just don't get much out of. I'll start with Avedon. I think he's an important photographer, one who's clearly an artist, but one who just doesn't usually do it for me. Now, that's not to say I haven't learned from reading about him and looking at his work. But, in general, his portraits leave me cold, get monotonous after a while because of the similarity of pose and the lack of context/background. I'm thinking particularly of The American West stuff, which I've seen in books, on line, and in person. There's no doubt in my mind that he's an artist, someone whose work I just don't like very much. To an extent, I feel the same way about Mapplethorpe. He's important, and having recently read the Patti Smith book about her life with him (Just Kids), I appreciate his role as an artist even more. But most of his stuff just doesn't reach me and I get a cold, distant feeling from it. Even the more provocative stuff which I know was very personal for him simply comes across as distanced and cold. With both of the above, I understand why people like them and why they have the reputations they do. And I would include them in any list of important photographer/artists. In order to do so, I have to be objective and take into account other things beside my own likes and dislikes, my own personal reaction, and my own subjectivity. I'd like to hear what you think and if there are specific people or works you'd want to discuss.