|dc.description.abstract||The task of identifying and then explaining art and aesthetic experience is made more complicated by the recent inclusion of typical non-art objects into the world of art. It used to be that our artistic senses were engaged whenever a work struck us as very closely resembling an object, a scene, or a person. But, with the development of new media being added to traditional media, and, with the acceptance of what is included within the realm of art, it has become less and less clear what actually counts as art and why. For example, one might wonder what makes Warhol’s Brillo Boxes more valuable, or at least, more "art" than the kind bought in stores. The realm of fine art photography reveals the same confusion. Skeptics question if photographs can contain any artistic value at all – after all, why should we value a photograph of an object instead of simply valuing the object itself?
In this paper, I explain the skeptic's argument, and while accepting the premise that an interest in a photograph is sometimes an interest in the object within the photograph, I will show how, even in such a case, a photograph can still be considered art -- art most similar to readymade art.||