William Eggleston & Everyone Who Has Owned A Camera, Ever

The work of a master, apparently

I have been faced countless times with the question "What is art?" and I always tried to keep an open mind about it as much as a could. In a lot of cases it helps to expand your worldview and something will make you think even if it is on a small level.

But then sometimes I find myself staring at a piece of work in front of me somebody made that someone else announced was great and I question my life and wonder things like "the hell IS this?" and "What am I doing with my life?" and, like today, "if THIS is a masterpiece why bother becoming an artist"

Luckily for this photographer he has other pieces of his work that are impressive, so his whole career doesnt hang in the balance of this.

This picture is not interesting. The colors are dull and mundane, there is nothing that can be said in defense of the composition, it is plain, boring, and belongs in the stock photo section of deviantart.com.

If this is all that it takes to become a master photographer, than what about just giving the title to anyone out there with a point and shoot? I mean really, what is the big difference between that photo up there, and something like this:

Besides this still looks better even after adding "poor" to the search terms.

Why not? Why not let anyone who can snap a picture of some trees without any integrity get to be called a "master." If I had been faced with either of these photos as part of my work for the day and chosen to not discard them or use them as stock but to hand it in as a "master" work of art I would deserve whatever punishment came my way.

This is nice.

Fortunately for him, he has a number of other photos in his portfolio that are not crap to redeem himself with.