while searching google for research purposes i stumbled onto an interesting article as shown below
sally mann untitled 61, (series what remains)
now it begs the question how do we determine when photography is art and when it isnt. does the image need to been taken with art in mind or can it be perceived as art after the fact. in my opinion all art is a matter of perception and opinion so the artists intention is not wholly important so you as the onlooker come to the decision as to what you look at is art or not. i feel that the placement of said images is one of the factors that help with the perception. for instance if you see the photo above in the telegraph would you see it as art or horrific? where as if you were to see it on a wall of a gallery you would of course define it as art irrelevant as to wether you like it or not it would most probably be art in my opinion.