The line between porn and art
To some people, porn is “anything a child should not see”. And to some people, a nude body is perfectly natural and acceptable for a child to see.
If porn is in the eye of the beholder, then I have to admit that I do draw a line and at some point say “this is porn”. Porn is anything whose sole purpose is to elicit a sexual response.
Can porn be art? I’m sure it can… If you believe in the definition of art as “that which elicits an emotional response”, then all porn is art. But usually we draw a line – porn or art.
The voice of the inner critic
The struggle of any artist is to keep perspective. Too confident, and you never grow. Too doubtful, and you never try.
I believe that it is okay to be your own worst critic – that means you are always exceeding the expectations of others. But that inner critique needs to be honest about both the good and bad aspects of your work. And eventually you need to put the critic aside and say “this is as good as it can be, for now.”
Good photography
Repost of a response in a forum on MySpace:
I have a quote in my profile at deviantArt: “If you stop shooting beauty because it’s cliché, you will have nothing left to shoot but ugliness.” That is my response to the idea that pictures of sunsets and flowers are overdone. I had bought in to that idea for a while, and it made me question my efforts at those subjects. I almost felt guilty for posting pictures of “cliché” subjects.
The point of that statement is not to disagree with the idea that those things are overdone. There are people who believe that just because the subject is a sunset or a flower, that it is automatically a good picture. Not true. Anybody can point and click. Not everyone can compose a striking image. If that were true, the images I have on my wall here next to me – a butterfly and a frog, both by a very talented nature photographer – wouldn’t really be worth what I paid for them.
But this is much like the discussion over whether the presence of cheap digital cameras diminishes the value of the works of the dedicated photographers. Just because there are a lot of pictures of sunsets and flowers, doesn’t mean that there are a lot of good pictures of those things.
I do agree that one measure of a good photographer is the ability to take good photos of everyday things, but I don’t necessary hold that as a requirement when making the judgment. After all, there are plenty of people doing great shots of volcanoes and deep sea creatures that deserve credit. 
I think the real answer is that there are two requirements for a “great” photographer. The first is technical proficiency. The second is the artistic element, the photographer’s eye. The second element is the tricky piece when trying to make statements about which subjects do or do not mark the work of a great photographer. One photographer may be technically proficient at shooting still-life, but outstanding at capturing candid street scenes. Another may do acceptable studio portraits, but excel at capturing the height of action at sporting events. In the end, you can only judge a photographer on their body of work, without prejudice for the subjects within.