1) Photography: art? something different? From the viewpoint of “a piece of art”, how does the inherent lossless reproducibility of photographs change their value/impact/worth? Does the lack of the reproduction step that drawing/painting has – translating a scene into a visual code, lines, blobs, dots, etc that the brain then turns into a mental image – take something fundamental away from photography?
Short answer? Yes photography is an art. Art is the term used to describe objects that encapsulate thought. The making of a photograph has as much of a chance to be meaningful as any other act. Reproducibility doesn’t change photograph’s imapct or worth since it is a part of the photograph’s ontology. Photographs don’t lack the reproduction step as you term it. The camera is as tricky a tool as any other. Just think how rarely the picture you take looks like what you are looking at in the scene. Any practiced photographer knows that and is mentally doing the translating that you allude to as they use the camera. They are traslating the scene into the picture before they push the shutter.
2) No more cute children. When you look at people’s work, what is it that draws you to what you consider “good”?
This confuses me a little, but I’m guessing you mean what do I consider good in other people’s work. The work I’m attracted to is usually complex and unexpected – about interconnectedness, and sensually engaged.
I hope those answers were ok. And thanks for asking.
As stated earlier this is question month around here – ask and I’ll try to respond.