[RHSeeger]

A drawing/painting of a car crash certainly can be

https://www.etsy.com/listing/4329570102/crash-impact-car-can...

As can a photo of one (sorry, I don't have a good example of that).

And, both a camera and AI are an example of "using a tool to create an image of something". Both involve a creator to determine what picture is created; but the tool is central/crucial to the creation.

[card_zero]

When I was about 12 a car crashed in my quiet street (somebody tried to drive it through a concrete fence), so the next day I sat in the street and did an ink drawing of the wreckage with a mapping pen nib. That was excellent art. Then I stole one of the gigantic suspension springs and took it home to use as a stool, which by some silly definitions was also an act of art. But this all evades the original question about whether the actual car crash is art for evoking feelings, or whether art in fact must involve pictures, or human communication, or what. It's one of the impossible definitions, along with "intelligence" and "freedom". I'm a fan of "I know it when I see it".

[only-one1701]

I would never argue that a painting of a car crash couldn’t be art. It’s funny your bringing up that a camera is a tool for creating art; I also hold photographic art in lower esteem than other kinds of visual art (though I still think some kind of photography can be art).

At a certain point, we need to be realistic about the amount of effort involved in artistic creation. Here’s a thought experiment: someone puts two paintings in a photocopier and makes a single sheet of paper with both paintings. Did that person create art? They certainly had the vision to put those two specific paintings together, and they used a tool to create that vision in reality!

[RHSeeger]

> Here’s a thought experiment: someone puts two paintings in a photocopier and makes a single sheet of paper with both paintings. Did that person create art?

Yeah, it gets really murky there. For that specific thought experiment, I would say it depends on if it's something that people will see and think about and talk about, etc. For example, a collection of pairs of images of people that were assassinated over the years and an image of their assassin would certain get people talking (some in a good way, some bad).

When it comes to effort, I think that's only a factor, too; and not even necessarily a good one. There's art out there like

- Someone taped a banana to a wall (and included instructions for taping another banana to replace it)

- Someone (literally) threw a few cans of paint at a canvas and created something chaotic looking

Both of those things are "low effort" at first glance. But someone spent time thinking about it, and what they wanted to do, and what people might think of it. And, without a doubt, there's people that would refer to both as art.

[card_zero]

It's going to be "creativity" (another hazy definition!) rather than effort, though. Photography, often said to be all about framing, seems very low effort. You might take one lucky snap. Then the effort can be claimed to be in years of getting ready to be lucky, which is a fair point, but that displaced effort isn't really in the specific photo. Besides, maybe you're a very happy photographer, loved every minute of learning your craft, and found it no effort at all, just really interesting.

[tormeh]

Yeah, photography (editing aside) is about having taste and getting lucky. A good photographer can of course raise their odds of getting lucky, but still. There's some technique in there too, but that's really not all that complicated. That said, I think few things match a good photo. There's something about a photo subject being real that I find fascinating. A photo exhibition does not display the imagination of the photographers, but rather the incredible in the real world.

[RHSeeger]

It does, however, display the photographers ability to say "hey, you should see this" and be right about it.