I know this is an old thread, but it's a great one and ever so current, so, why not... Art is so subjective, or more, than food... First thing to consider, since the great masters of painting where brought to the conversation, is that, ultimately they painted what was in their vision. Take Picasso - since he was mentioned before - as an example. Did his subjects look the way he painted them? I dont believe they did... But he still posed and arranged what he were to paint. So, I guess we can exclude photojournalism as a form of art. An artist takes time to prepare - arrange - the image he wants to depict; a photojournalist gets what he/she can... And here, we can also include landscape, or architecture photography - yes, even Ansel Adams - or wild-life, or street-photography, or Ken Rockwell's washrooms ;D... Those are just images... Some amazing and with an incredible monetary value, but just an image that was there for anyone to take... They just captured what was there. Lots of paintings do that even more accurately than the great masters... It's like comparing a movie (lets say, the Godfather) to a documentary... So what was it about them, that made "us" call them artists? The posing, most importantly, and also the composition. Have you looked at Michelangelo statues' hands? Or the way they are posed, the way they lift their heads, ever so slightly, the way the weight is distributed on the hip, etc? That's what some photographers try to achieve in their images. Even most wedding photographers are but pjs, although some, do take their time composing their shots (arranging the subject, light, backgroud, the way the dress falls, the way the hands are placed, etc) and that comes closer to those great masters. And they charge a lot for their images, and people buy them to hang them on walls... Ask Annie Leibovitz, or Bamby Cantrell, or Sue Bryce, or Jerry Ghionis if they say they are artists? NO!!! So why should any of us mere mortals???