>>3682002Let me put
>I feel you ought photography flatly to be art because of some overlap and artful context, because of involved subjectivity.in another way as English is a foreign language to me. I have the impression that you flatly define photography to be art, by relying on a certain overlap with art and a certain context of art, by relying on a certain subjectivity that goes along with it. Leave the non-honorific aspect, that is not at all what I wanted photography to be understood as.
For me, subjective impact is neither sufficient nor necessary to call something art. Therefore I have used the term higher to indicate that there must be intention, interpretation, sense/perception, something vague along the notion of these terms and not just subjectivity. It feels so intangible to me that no matter what I do, I could label it not art, and be right, while someone else labels it art, and be right.
