Now and then we notice in our Flickr community commentary about certain photographs not being art. Some of these comments are nice, some are not so nice. These comments generally posit that images of nudity and sex are more popular and as they are thus favored more often and get more comments they must then not really be art. I will not get into here what is art and what is not art, but just suggest that images posted on Flickr are both and neither. Flickr is a unique modern phenomenon that is hard to define. It is a platform for creativity and some photographs are clearly better than others. It is also a community, a place where we exchange and express our experiences in the virtual world. Flickr has different meanings for different people. Personally, I like Flickr because others inspire me; I learn from them. I post my photos for feedback and it is unimportant to me whether or not my images are considered art or not. It just doesn’t matter that much. Many of us get excited when we see an image we like and can relate to and we give it a comment and a star. Why is this perceived by some as being so wrong? It has perhaps something to do with the strange phenomenon that the images created by people who consider themselves artists usually get less stars and less comments. I don’t know why some of the more artistic pictures get less attention on Flickr and I have wondered about it myself. Could it also be that some virtual world artists feel frustrated by a general lack of recognition, not only on Flickr but also inworld, and are in fact envious of some Flickr photographers getting more attention (i.e, Flickr stars, comments, followers) than they themselves do? Just saying.
Photograph by Kate Bergdorf