I cannot disagree, as I have big trouble with the word myself. Are popular musicians ‘artists’? Are producers of trashy cinema? Yeah, what is art? And, but, but, is it art?
A couple of months ago I went to as meeting of a photography group whose leader was a studio photographer of (presumably) art photography (as opposed to wedding photography and such.) I take a lot of photographs these days and have an educational background in the area. I have trouble calling myself an ‘artist’. Like the four others there I brought a pen drive with a few photos to be subjected to critique. He loaded it onto his Mac, yes, computer with a big screen, where they must reside to this day, dammit, and started critiquing. Only one of my photos had identifiable people in it, a scene I captured of a father and daughter in motion and interesting poses that provoked some thoughts about the sceneto the viewer. It was also the only one of the 30 or so photos we critiqued during the session that had identifiable people (i.e not some small shadows of figures out in the distance.)
Oh, boy, did I provoke this fellow, who had some Sanskrit sign tattoo on the side of his bald head, and whose persona triggered slightly my gaydar. My photo did not qualify as “art photography”, it was a mere “family snapshot”, he went on. And went on for a bit. It seemed to me that I hit some raw nerve in the man. But I consider all my photos, including those that he actually praised, as “snapshots”. Unlike he in his studio, I don’t spend more than a few seconds, or maybe a minute to compose and shoot a photograph. Oh, I have my favorite spots to which I return and endlessly retake photos, seeking that perfect composition and light, yes. Does all that make me an artist? I don’t think so, but the question is something of a struggle. And this particular fellow had for himself a very definite answer. I don’t.
“My photo did not qualify as ‘art photography’, it was a mere ‘family snapshot’, he went on. And went on for a bit. It seemed to me that I hit some raw nerve in the man”
Philosophy is full of nonsense, but few subgenres get as ridiculous as aesthetics. Read very much of it and you’ll soon find no one knows what they’re talking about, if you can understand them at all. It took the common sense of Nietszche, of all people, to point out how silly it is to think aesthetic pleasure is disinterested, as Kant, Hume, and the like had painted themselves into a corner of believing. Duh, we wouldn’t bother if it didn’t interest us.
For my part, I don’t consider photography high art, for various refined, complicated, and stupid reasons. As to whether your work was fine (for photography), commercial, domestic, or kitsch, I don’t know.