>>4112076They do it with the intent to experiment. That's intent and it's art because there's an intent to create an image.
Even with a specific look in mind, you can create something that has no message or substance. Art is not meaningless.
Where's the cutoff for intent? Did you intend every aspect of the photo? Did your intention bring the birds there? Obviously I'm dichotomizing. If we agreed before that all images are art because they were created by the intent for them to be created, we need to establish where the cutoff point is for that intent. What counts as "intent to produce" and what doesn't?
If you intend to release the shutter with all the intent to do it at a certain time, but none of the knowledge of when the right time is, that's virtually indistinguishable from snapshitting. If I say "I will take a photo at 8:14 pm on March 3rd, 2025" and then do that, the image itself has no substance beyond the intent to have made the image. Intending extra doesn't add extra substance PER SE, unless the intent has a reason. Intend all you want, but intending without knowledge or ability is pointless. That's where you are.
>>4112078A peculiar look can be accidental, so your point doesn't stand.
Academia is literally just a method for dealing with knowledge. You hate it because you ain't it.
If you want to know how a watch works, you take it apart and look at it, then you put it back together. Can you make a watch without knowing how watches work? You seem to think you can, because you're an idiot. I don't have an arts degree, (well, BA but not BFA) I just like art and enjoy knowing what makes an image work. That's curiosity. I don't pretend to know everything (because I'm not an idiot like you), and I think that's actually led me to know much more than you. Dunning-Kruger effect. I know enough to know that there are things I don't know.
>>4112079I'm asking not to know, because I can figure things out for myself; I'm asking to see that you know. So far you don't
