>>3784741As I have said the reply above, that time and context matters. He took this photograph in Düsseldorf and he exhibited in the same city so viewers knew that he have manipulated the scene and even Gursky never kept it a secrete. Intention of the photographer does matter but the photograph have to stands on it's own first. In this case his primary intention of manipulation is clear. And if someone wants to put their subjective meaning on top it then who can stop him? If others can't honestly see that meaning in the photograph then nobody is stopping them to discard the interpretation.
Nobody really cares about the definition of art because it's a totally meaningless endeavour to lose ourselves in language games. If it is art then okay. If it isn't art then who cares?
Lastly camera doesn't do most of the work. That's a ridiculous statement, it's like saying paint brush do most of the work. You can make an argument that anyone can capture a great photograph but I would ask you that can that person capture another great photograph? Camera itself is a hollow box, a meaningless machine unless the photographer picks it up and point towards something. If photography was that easy then whole instagram must have been full of Robert Franks, Sugimotos, Gurskys etc. but it isn't because just capturing a fragment in four frame isn't enough.
