Is photography art? If so, is it then art to simply take a photo of someone's art piece like I have done here - a photo of some grafitti birds on Mariebergsbron in Stockholm, Sweden - or is it simply a copy of someone else's art (illegal to distribute even?). When does the work of one person start and the other end? When do you add to something and when do you simply copy? Who decides?
Another example - photos of architecture like in this photo. I love that photo because of the clean lines, but isn't that only thanks to the clear vision of the architect? Of course, as a photographer you choose what to show. The stairs in the above example might perhaps not look as clean and simple to everyone in reality as it is surrounded by lots of distracting "noise" both above the upper border and below, so clearly I, as a photographer, have created something new despite the fact that everything you see in the picture was put together by someone else. These questions confuses me sometimes...
Another example - photos of architecture like in this photo. I love that photo because of the clean lines, but isn't that only thanks to the clear vision of the architect? Of course, as a photographer you choose what to show. The stairs in the above example might perhaps not look as clean and simple to everyone in reality as it is surrounded by lots of distracting "noise" both above the upper border and below, so clearly I, as a photographer, have created something new despite the fact that everything you see in the picture was put together by someone else. These questions confuses me sometimes...