Art

"Art is an activity by means of which one man, having experienced a feeling, intentionally transmits it to others" says Tolstoy. Which is a pretty good definition I think. Does Tracey Emin's "Unmade Bed" qualify? Well, she certainly experienced a lot of feelings in that bed, so she says, and I suppose she has intentionally transmitted it to others - in a way; except that simply a view of the bed after all her shinanigans has nothing to do with "feelings", not her feelings anyway; the fact is that you, the observer, might experience a different sort of feeling than she did. And Damien Hurst's "Fish"! Can't think what "feelings" he experienced when he mounted the thing but, when you look at it, all you see is a fish in a tank.
A man named Martin Elliott died recently. No, I'd never heard of him either. Well, he took a famous photo. His only famous photo. The one of the girl with tennis gear on, carrying a racket, walking away across a tennis court - you've got it! - yeah, that one, the one where she's slightly lifting the bottom of her dress. Made Elliott barrowfuls of money. As The Times reporter put it, "it swiftly claimed its place on teenage boys' bedroom walls around the world".
But is it art? I don't think Martin Elliott thought it was when he took it of his then 18 year old girl friend, Fiona Butler; he was taking a snapshot to sell. I don't think many other people who have seen the photo would bring the word "art" into a discussion of its merits. Not many. But George Melly did. He and other celebrety critics and art afficionados were asked to write articles on one of their favourite works of art. He chose the photo of Ms Butler. And in a way I suppose you can make out a kind of Tolstoyan case for it: Elliott no doubt was experiencing a feelling about Ms Butler and there's little doubt that he intentionally trasmitted it to others. In Emin's and Hirst's cases you just see the objects; in Elliott's case you see what he feels. It may not be a feeling of great import or depth but you sort of know how he felt when he took that photo.
Which makes a mockery of Tolstoy's definition because the photo isn't a work of art. Don't ask me why, it just ain't. Most photography, by its very nature, ain't.
I close my case - for what it's worth.