Before asking when a nude is a work of art I would like to ask when any photo can be defined as a work of art. Everybody can produce a photo. In an presentation on his contact sheets, Elliott Erwitt says "even a trained orang-utan with a wide angle lens could not fail to make an acceptable picture of that situation". When is a photograph art? On this site it is very frequent to read self-definitions such as: "I am an artist"; "I produce photographic art"; and references to "my art". What differentiates us from Erwitt's "trained orang-utans"? Is a photo a piece of art when: it is particularly faithful in representing reality? (the recently discovered Vivian Maier; Magnum's Martin Parr) when it succeeds in making reality surreal? (David LaChapelle) when the author has particular skills in (post) processing images? when the photographer is particularly imaginative in conceiving visual situations which s/he photographs? when the photographer is particularly able to present the scenes s/he imagines? (the recently quoted Chan Chao) when the author succeeds in producing particular effects in the phase of printing her/his works (e.g.: William Eggleston and the dye transfer)? when the photographer is particularly able to perform well in critical situations? (Magnum's Steve McCurry and Paolo Pellegrin, or Karen Kasmauski) ??? ??? I presently feel overthrown by photographs. Are they all pieces of art? how much art do I miss because of visual overflow? How do I recognise art in photography? Do I need the mediation of an editor/a museum curator/a photographic critic/a historian of plastic arts? We can very well reason starting from examples, but nevertheless they are not enough: there is the need to find a philosophical method (rooted in aesthetics), to understand if I am in front of a piece of art or not.