>>3889603>first it was peterson lecture clipshuh? Was that for real, did you think I was paraphrasing le no pronouns man on something?
>/pol/‘s infographic of logical fallacieswoah, maybe you should go back there.
>the only way photos can have any creative merit is if the photographer has inputThe only way they can be art, yes.
>which would discount any shot that doesn’t have an actor or at least some propYou're now singing a different song, They're models, not actors, and they don't necessarily have to be paid. The props thing is another form of input, yes. But you're being overly limiting. You could be in front of a scene and change it in different ways beyond what you said. But at least the things you named are art.
>yet picrel of a literal mural that i had nothing to do with beforehand was apparently suitable for /lit/ anons (as edgy as they are) to lay over a cool, angsty poem on itThe mural artist is the artist there. But I wouldn't brag about being selected by people with such shit taste to write such a "poem". Didn't make it after the third verse, it's just too bad.
Going back to photography, it looks like you had input in the form of lighting the mural that way to craft the scene. Now, if you didn't light it up, and if you didn't edit it, then you can't lay artistic claim to that picture. If all you did was point the camera and press the shutter, what you did wasn't art.
