Yes, it is what I said. You did not read what I said correctly.

Vicissitude, maven.

I didn't say photography had no artistic value. Never in this thread have I said that all photography is not art. Look at the post I was replying to:

"So if a photographer made an exhibition about urban life in the 21st century you wouldn`t consider it art because they just went around taking photos of stuff?"

I said that that is void of any artistic merit.

Learn to fucking read.

"Oh, the cretinousness of assumption."

Why does that have no artistic merit?

And there's no need to swear at people. This is very interesting.

So everything that I think lacks artistic merit isn't art? That's bullshit, you don't have to like it but, it's still art.

Because it requires minimal talent and originality.

No. Everything that does lack artistic merit isn't art.

We're going in circles.

You're an idiot art is subjective there is no definite. No one has the place to judge what has merit and what does not. You can form your own opinion but you're rather conceited to think that it matters.

who decides what is "artistic merit" and not?

Apparently, Stone Magnet.

It is or isn't. There is no individual verdict. It's like asking if "******" is offensive or not.

If you believe all of this to be true, then why are you arguing with me?

I said no one has the place to say what is and isnt art or, what does and doesn't have merit. I'm not the one calling things not art.

Stone, you would go a long way towards credibility if you were to simply say you, personally, don't think it's art, rather than pass judgement for the masses.

Obviously, the photographer, the art gallery people, and the thousands who come to look at the exhibit think it's art.

Your opinion as to whether or not it's art is valid, but only to you. It extends no further than the end of your own nose.