>>3056820I would agree that technology has advanced to the point where good photography equipment is more affordable to the hobbyist. And everyone has decent enough camera's in their phones.
But the of rules of composition light, tone and colour, message, cultural relevance, etc, still apply to those trying to create an artistic photograph.
If anything the availability of cameras to millions and the platforms that they can be displayed on show us just how mediocre most people are at photography. Hell even a large minority Pro photographers fucking suck nuts, use boring lighting, unimaginative composition and rely solely on the attractiveness of their models. But people eat that shit right up. Because (of course) what the the general population class as 'good' is wildly different to that of the enthusiast.
Phone cameras, cheap DSLR's, fucking around with the sliders and adding an instagram filters make it easy to create photos that look 'good' in only the most gimmicky of ways.
But the best photos still stand out to the people who know.
>>3056443It's just the easiest to start off in, so 95% of it is garbage...but I wouldn't count that garbage as art.
Also
>Creating a hierarchy for art>Having a vague concept of what art itPick one
