Perhaps this is a bit on the passive aggressive side since I can’t really confront the culprits directly, but I’ve noticed that some painters or illustrators (not sure what they’re called) copy other people’s art and try to pass it off as their own art. There is no way a photographer can get away with taking a picture of a painting and say “look guys! I’m an artist!”, yet I see others draw pictures of a photograph and get pats on the back for being so clever when the painting is merely a xerox copy of the photo.
Perhaps it seems hypocritical that I say this when just a few days ago, I posted pictures of art cars which clearly were the works of others; however, the difference is that I never claim those pictures as art. How should one portray such work? In my case I would say those pictures were more journalistic and hopefully the angles and the compositions chosen tell a story or bring in an interesting perspective, but it would be a stretch to call it art. Then again, this brings up the question of what is artistic photography since photos are always going to copy something that exists in life?
Is a portrait of a beautiful woman art? The photographer didn’t make the woman after all (unless it’s a parent lol). What if you put a fruit hat on the woman, is that art?