Hmm ... let's not get into that debate, because there are exemplarary photographers in all camps, and just like religion and politics, and sex even, there will never be an 'answer' to satisfy everyone.
I do know, however, of some self-proclaimed 'artists' or 'artistic-photographers' who simply are too lazy or for various reasons, not able to grasp or master the technicalities.
Some produce very interesting work and that was what they intended, and for others, whatever super blur lah wrong colour casts etc etc etc I suspect were not a matter of deliberate design and plans, but random haphazardness.
Who are we to argue that their work has no artistic merit, or has artistic merit? Even art critics and connoisseurs fall into different camps, ideologies etc etc etc.
Similarly, many technically super slick works may tend to be repetitive and boring to other audiences. Look into any of the major mainstream editorials and so much fashion and advertising work look similar. If you've been around mainstream commercial photographers and know the behind closed doors chatter, .. oh well, if you know, you know.
What it boils down to is, I guess, a requirement to fufill different criteria for different purposes and target audiences. Try submitting a blurred, badly exposed photograph to a panel of salon masters and see that photo get rejected without as much as a second glance. Submit editorial work for Interview or some other alternative publication and if it's a technically perfect piece, it might just get hoo-harred as being void and soul-less and a product of mass-capatilism or whatever super vouge but vauge verbosity etc etc etc.
Anyways, I am a noob in these areas. As someone mentioned, 'I just too damn free!' :bsmilie:
I do know, however, of some self-proclaimed 'artists' or 'artistic-photographers' who simply are too lazy or for various reasons, not able to grasp or master the technicalities.
Some produce very interesting work and that was what they intended, and for others, whatever super blur lah wrong colour casts etc etc etc I suspect were not a matter of deliberate design and plans, but random haphazardness.
Who are we to argue that their work has no artistic merit, or has artistic merit? Even art critics and connoisseurs fall into different camps, ideologies etc etc etc.
Similarly, many technically super slick works may tend to be repetitive and boring to other audiences. Look into any of the major mainstream editorials and so much fashion and advertising work look similar. If you've been around mainstream commercial photographers and know the behind closed doors chatter, .. oh well, if you know, you know.
What it boils down to is, I guess, a requirement to fufill different criteria for different purposes and target audiences. Try submitting a blurred, badly exposed photograph to a panel of salon masters and see that photo get rejected without as much as a second glance. Submit editorial work for Interview or some other alternative publication and if it's a technically perfect piece, it might just get hoo-harred as being void and soul-less and a product of mass-capatilism or whatever super vouge but vauge verbosity etc etc etc.
Anyways, I am a noob in these areas. As someone mentioned, 'I just too damn free!' :bsmilie:
I think many pros will not dare to make a claim like this. 
