any resources of photography that is actually art, and not just perfected craft?

I have trouble finding pictures that i like. I think that sites like 500px.com have almost exclusively pictures that are perfected craft - but nowhere close art. These pictures does not contain any kind of emotional message from neither author or subject of photography. They are simpy uninteresting.
Only place worth visiting online i know is americansuburbx.com. I'd like to know more of these, especially places with user-generated content.
Do you know anything?

Since you seem to have your own definition of art, you are probably on your own in finding a place that has it.

Just because you are unable to read doesn't mean that books are uninteresting to everyone. Pretty much the same is true with photos.

500px are postacard pictures. Amazing, perfect, postard pictures. These pictures are result of great experience and knowledge. However, soul is the missing piece. These pictures were created merely with brain, not heart. They are not affected by personality of creator. These are pictures you just admire visually, rather than experiencing emotionally.

Learning rules of composition, perfecting exposure and spending few hours in photoshop is not enought to create art, and these are only components of pictures such as these on 500px.

I undersand that such explanation is not sufficient to define art, and my complains remains unclear, but this is the best i can do.

hellbike wrote in post #13737124
Only place worth visiting online i know is americansuburbx.com.

gonzogolf wrote in post #13737176
Since you seem to have your own definition of art,

Hellbike, concerning american suburbx, do you find a picture of a TV dinner sitting on a stove, or a woman in the shower showing off her hairy armpits interesting?

hellbike wrote in post #13737418
500px are postacard pictures. Amazing, perfect, postard pictures. These pictures are result of great experience and knowledge. However, soul is the missing piece. These pictures were created merely with brain, not heart. They are not affected by personality of creator. These are pictures you just admire visually, rather than experiencing emotionally.

Learning rules of composition, perfecting exposure and spending few hours in photoshop is not enought to create art, and these are only components of pictures such as these on 500px.

Some, sure. Others? Just because you can't grasp it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

hellbike wrote in post #13737418
500px are postacard pictures. Amazing, perfect, postard pictures. These pictures are result of great experience and knowledge. However, soul is the missing piece. These pictures were created merely with brain, not heart. They are not affected by personality of creator. These are pictures you just admire visually, rather than experiencing emotionally.

Learning rules of composition, perfecting exposure and spending few hours in photoshop is not enought to create art, and these are only components of pictures such as these on 500px.

I have to disagree. There is no such thing as creating an image with the heart or soul. Those are merely words used to describe something that is not describable. All images are created by the an individual and as such are affected by their personality of the creator.

What you are describing is the intangible of what art is. No two people experience an image in the same manner. I can look at a landscape and feel calm and serene and feel great joy. You look at the image and scratch your head wondering what it is all about. On the converse, you look at a plain black square painted on a white canvas and are overwhelmed with emotion where I look at it and scratch my head and mumble, really? It's all in how each individual interprets the image.

Try here http://1x.com/

gjl711 wrote in post #13737478
I have to disagree. There is no such thing as creating an image with the heart or soul. Those are merely words used to describe something that is not describable. All images are created by the an individual and as such are affected by their personality of the creator.

What you are describing is the intangible of what art is. No two people experience an image in the same manner. I can look at a landscape and feel calm and serene and feel great joy. You look at the image and scratch your head wondering what it is all about. On the converse, you look at a plain black square painted on a white canvas and are overwhelmed with emotion where I look at it and scratch my head and mumble, really? It's all in how each individual interprets the image.

This is very relative approach, and in this manner everything would be considered equal, would it be van gogh masterpiece or paining of 3 years old child. While i believe this is true, such view makes any kind of discussion meaningless.

We are discussing about tastes, not about universal truth.

What is art?

Is "Rhein II" considered art? I found it to be uninteresting, and lacking any sort of emotional message.

Try with 'StumbleUp', you might find the art that is your 'cup-of-tea'

hellbike wrote in post #13737530
...such view makes any kind of discussion meaningless.

Exactly.

And as gonzogolf says:

gonzogolf wrote in post #13737176
Since you seem to have your own definition of art, you are probably on your own in finding a place that has it.

Art is form.

Form can only be recognized through the intellect. It might be popular to say and think that "art conveys emotion" but sensory responses do not qualify works of art. Art is identified by form which can only be recognized through objective reason and discrimination.

i believe that definition of art for most of people participating in this thread is "pretty picture". (this is not a response to ross j)

hellbike wrote in post #13738203
i believe that definition of art for most of people participating in this thread is "pretty picture". (this is not a response to ross j)

Thanks for the insult. I dont think you would care to hear what at least one of the people posting in this thread think of you. You have no idea what we think is art.