But is it art?

There's been an argument raging between columnists in the Guardian (a UK newspaper).  It was said by Jonathan Jones, and i'm paraphrasing, that a photograph isn't art.  This isn't a new sentiment and is an argument pretty much as old as the camera itself.  Jones argues that it's not a creative act but a testament to ease of which we can take good photographs with the technology we now have access too.  He seems annoyed by the sale of Peter Lik's photograph of a canyon for $6.5m.

My response would falls along the same lines as response by Michael McIntyre when told his comedy is easy; "What I'd like to say to these people is, if it's so easy then why don't you do it? ... I have a great life. It's going really well for me. The house is looking great. We go on really nice holidays. You can have some of that. If it's so f---ing easy."

So, Jonathan Jones - Let's see you snap away and make millions too.  Oh, it's not that easy is it?  No.

Reference: Guardian Article.

Photographing Art

Graffiti.  I love to photograph graffiti because it's such a transitory artform, but it's often said that it's "photographing someone elses art" and that's a complete valid criticism.  I feel the same way about it, and to a lesser extent to architectural photography.

The only response I really have relates to the aforementioned transitory nature of street art.  It feels less about, to all intents and purposes, "photocopying" someone else work and passing it off as something creative on your part, but documenting a changing scene.

What do you think?