[Copernicus]

I dont like your definition, since just because someone is capable of producing "art", doesnt mean that everything he produces IS art.

To me art is not the process but the result. I would define art as "an arrangement of elements of the given medium/media in a manner that causes an impartial observer to react in a manner other than indifference and that requires an appreciable amount of skill ".

Ie art can please the senses, cause revulsion, make the observer think, etc, it just cannot leave the observer thinking "BFD", and is in the eye of each individual beholder.

A painting of geometric shapes might cause one observer to think "that shade of pink in the triangle creates a beautiful contrast to the black in the square", so its art to him. There is an "appreciable amount of skill" because the observers appreciation of the nuances of the color results from it being something he would not have thought of himself.

Another observer might think "anyone can draft squares and triangles and color them in"...so the artist has failed to demonstrate a level of skill that the observer appreciates.

The "impartial observer" requirement was added to differentiate things like the pride of a parent in a 4 year olds stick figure drawing of mommy and daddy. If an impartial observer sees elements of the drawing that both cause a reaction and requires skill, it is still art.

Your photo example? BFD, imo [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].