is this art?

no
>its summertime sadness

it's not art if we can't see her doo doo hole and bokeh.

>No bokeh
>no pets


not art

>>3090020
>>3090021
yes

>>3090020
sure but it's still garbage

Zoology

>>3090120

HUEHUEHUE

You must be an professional comedian Amorites?

>>3090020
>horrible lighting
>haphazard attempt at boudoir photography
>"Is this art?"

No, this is shit

File: Fit-5696.jpg (301KB, 688x1000px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 688x1000px

>>3090020
Do you think it is?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS Rebel T6
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10 (Windows)
Photographer	Jordan Sheren
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:31 20:32:23
Exposure Time	1/1600 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3090020
Does it have any artistic message? Does it have any concept concerning either technique or said message? How does it operate symbolic field and semiotics?

Sure, why not.

pseudo-vintage filters aren't ``art''
hell, photography isn't ``art''

>>3090762
>Art is an honorific term
>Art has to be "good" in order for it to be art
>There's no such thing as "bad" art
lel

>>3090020
I'm going to be honest with you; yes, this is art. I understand that having someone critique your work can be priceless, but finding the right person to do so is the whole point. you come to a cesspool of wasps that have convened here to help others' form of artistic expression die like their own. granted, there are a few that would actually give you an impartial critique, but there odds are against it. i come here in hopes of seeing good photos every once in a while and maybe partake in gear convo.
with that said, i'd like to elaborate on your photos. don't put them together in the same image like that; its annoying af. also, you will hear people say "your highlights are blown" a lot and others will knock them for saying so because it is probably the easiest thing to spot; even beginners can point it out. there is truth to it though as our eyes are drawn to the lighter areas and we strain ourselves to look for detail in them. when we can't find any, we get bored and move on (some would deem it a bad photo). dont worry about shallow v. great depth of field as it's up to your own creativity to decide what works best for what you want to say with the shot (some will deem it a bad photo if they don't agree with what you try to convey). i would recommend not cutting her fingers off in the photo on the right, include them.
>>3090021
i really like this photo. next time try to get just a little more light on her face as the eye is drawn to it. other than that, i like the lighting and your choice of depth of field; one can make this to be more of an intimate photo rather than a glamour photo.
Keep up the good work, nigger.
>Art for art's sake.