>>3512801You're a hypocrite, sort of.
Photography really has three main modes: fine art, journalism/documentary, and commercial (there is no such thing as "professional photography"). They all serve different purposes, and all can overlap with the other even if only slightly.
Very briefly, fine art is interpretive. It seeks to make a statement. Journalism seeks to make a record of events using the camera's dispassionate eye. It mostly tries to avoid making a statement. Commercial photography is trying to sell you something or somebody, typically done with great skill.
Photographing someone else's work typically falls under "documentary". The value of the photograph lies in the record, rather than the interpretive skill of the photographer. The further the work strays from document, the more it falls into the fine art category. Sometimes the argument can be made that the curatorial effort is artistic on its own. That's why guys like Richard Prince or the google street view photographer can sell prints of other people's work. The work existed previously in a "raw" state, and by the act of selection and reproduction the work becomes the artist's. However, and it sounds stupid but that's just the way it is, you'll probably need an MFA in photography or at least know how to write an artist's statement couched in artistic jargon to be able to pull that swindle off.
In terms of architecture, literally every element was slaved over for years, considerable expenses spent and generally a hell of a lot of effort went into it. Then you walk up and snap a photo and say "I MADE THIS". It's nonsense. The architecture literally factored in how the building would look on the skyline, when it would look best depending on the position of the sun, and even where someone should stand if the building were to look really impressive (e.g., where you're standing and taking a photo). So, where does your photo stand? Is it fine art? Documentary journalism? Commercial?
