Artful Dodger: whoa.. this is a tough one.. If I were at the museum and critiquing these items.. In my opinion.. and this is my opinion peeps..

Even though the subject is in very poor taste.. the structures and the picture are considered art..

I being a Fine artist view "What is Art?" way differently than most.. I feel art is a creation made by inspirations and the artists imagination to interpret his views, expressions and thoughts. What has been called art that I don't consider art.. is computer graphics unless you are the original artist and used your talents to draw and create them. An example to what I try to say. In my one design class. My instructor would assign a project and about 95% of the students would run to a puter.. steal someones work.. and manipulate the piece so they could call it there own.. I of course would draw out what the assignment was.. if it was to show depth.. or perception .. or usuage of space.. I drew each and every one.. I also have my views on photography as being considered art.. I feel there is a fine line here due to the expertise of the camera's which are sold today.. anyone who purchases a digital can now be considered an artist?? No.. just cause the photo came out without any flaws.. and the colors were actually grabbed up.. does not make you and artist.. What makes that photographer an artist is how he takes the piccie.. and what the subject is.. and how much of the subject he actually took in.. It is based on the imagination of the person behind the lenz and what he is trying to show his audience with the piccies.. a good example of an artist who uses photography.. would be Plaintiger.

I would not be considered an artist when it comes to snapping piccies.. for one.. I haven't had the fine tuning.. and another I can't afford a decent camera to snatch up great piccies..