When Grayson Perry was exploring the 'parameters of Art', in his recent Reith Lecture, he touched upon the thorny subject of Photography.
Photography has always been reluctantly included in what we consider to be the 'Arts' (capital A). The image already exists, the photographer uses a machine to record it, and the final result can be reproduced as many times as one wishes. At first glance it seems impossible to include it's activity along with that of either painting or sculpture.
Yet photography occasionally climbs to great heights. One only has to mention the names Capa, Cartier-Bresson, Ansel Adams, or Liebovitz, to know that it is a serious business.
I was amused at Grayson Perry's attempt to explain the difference between 'Art' photography, and 'non-Art' photography. He claims that you know when it's 'Art', if no-one in a picture is smiling; and you also know it's 'Art', if the photograph is very BIG.
So, take note; if you wish your snaps to be taken seriously, no smiling. And get your high street store 'Pix-u-Like' to enlarge them to at least 200 cms by 180 cms. Then, hey presto, according to Mr Perry you'll be an 'Artist', and not just a photographer like the rest of us.