This just strikes me as someone who needs a tripod.

I agree with angorian...

Thank you! I can see this without my glasses!

Positively makes me dizzy to look at, not in a good way. :(

You know, it's funny, we felt the same way too for a little while and asked Sara Jane if she could take another pic that wasn't so blurry. She did and sent it to us (the lowest one), but after almost putting that up top, we posted the original because it had really grown on us.

We couldn't get it out of our mind. Despite the blur, the richness and the movement of the light were somehow memorable, unique and captured a mood that the other did not.

We posted the original and chalked it all up to art. Art wins.

See if you can forget that top image.

How interesting...I love the blurry one. The less-blurry, lower picture is nice, but the blurry one touches something different and -- to me -- much more visually satisfying.

It's the impressionist vs. realist battle, fought in photography instead of paint.

It's not art- it's a picture taken at night w/o a tripod.
Nice try.

sure, I don't have a tripod. but what I got is a nice view.

Soft focus and even outright blur can be used as a means of artistic expression, but blurriness does not denote artistic merit. It's the intention that makes it art. The fact that the second picture is also blurry only reinforces the notion that the photographer was merely lacking a tripod.

It's the intention that makes it art.

Or it's the viewer's response that makes it art. Both positions have their followers, complete with polysyllabic explanations, footnotes, and rants about the foolishness of people who take the other position.

The photographer submitted the photo, so presumably she intended it to look as it did, which would meet your definition, too.

Angorian- I am with you. Kudos for the great view. Now it's time for Photography 101 in order to learn how to explore the possibilities of truly creating worthy images albeit in focus or not in focus. It's not surprising to see what has been posted-
they're a dime a dozen if you have that view and hand hold a camera in low light. It's kind of insulting to some of the more accomplished photos that have been posted here.
If you put it out there- be ready for being told you should work at this before passing it off as art. Nice try though.

The viewer's response making something art is a reasonable position too, and I wouldn't argue for one to the exclusion of the other. I think art needs both a creator and a viewer (even if it's the same person), so both sides play a role. My quibble is with the tendency to use "it's artistic" as an excuse for poor technique (or tools).

My quibble is with the tendency to use "it's artistic" as an excuse for poor technique (or tools).

Ahhhh... yes, there's an equivalent excuse in my original lib arts field, and I loathe it equally.

Random essay question to which I sure don't have a prefab answer: if the individual work is considered by viewers cool enough to be art, but the creator can't reproduce similar effects at will, do you have art but no artist?

I'll complicate this further. I wasn't kidding when I said earlier - "thank you because I can see this without my glasses". This is what things look like close without my glasses. That didn't mean I liked it or disliked it. Now, after reviewing, and after reading the various comments I realize why I don't like it and why I love it!

What I don't like is that it is on a computer screen and not on a wall where I could look at it daily and ponder it.

What I love is that the blurs look like Z's, Z's are symbolic of sleep, people sleep at night - do they? The Z's also remind me of a huge zipper which might open the mystery of that particular evening. What are all those people really doing in those buildings and what could be going on at the base of the bridge, better yet - is anyone contemplating jumping?

And, although that might seem like the muttering of a simple mind, I do know what I like and that's all that counts to me because I'm the one looking at it. This isn't MOMA, folks and we didn't pay to get in. As to whether it was an accident or intentional - does it really matter? It's a far more interesting photo than many. Give the girl some credit. This is a tough crowd on even the simplest of issues. Both sides have very interesting points - and doesn't "art" create controversy?