[matthew]

An excellent example can be found in Christian's recent post containing a link to the World Press Photo Awards.
Take a look at the 50 Years Gallery there and you'll see the top photographs for the last 50 years (Note: contains numerous disturbing images). All of them are incredibly powerful and moving photographs and would be considered art by many people (certainly by me). But how many of them are aesthetically pleasing or could be called "Beautiful"? About none.

I'm glad you brought up the World Press Photo competition. I saw last year's exhibit in person, and the photos have tremendous impact and can be very powerful. There's a series from 2005 on domestic violence, and once image was simply of a row of bolt-together plastic chairs that could be a waiting room anywhere - bus, train,hospital. Seen three feet wide, and in the context of violence, it's powerful and disturbing. Seen in a newspaper, it probably doesn't amount to much.

Context changes content. The same image, presented in two different places, will be perceived and received differently. The question of whether or not something is art is at least partially answered by other people's opinions about it. (Warhol = art, ad = media.) A beautiful, nuanced figure study seen in a glossy magazine will be perceived differently if it is in a portfolio presentation in Lenswork instead of in a perfume ad.

But just because I think art can be anything, doesn't mean that anything can be good art. Andy Warhol's soup can might be regarded as being "good art" because at the time it made an important social statement and it was pushing the envelope in regard to the whole questions of "what is art?", but if I knocked up a picture of a can of soup and stuck in on my wall and called it art then is it good? Of course not, because my only message is "look, I can do something that looks like Andy Warhol"

Absolutely. There's still the original though behind Warhol's presentation. But there's plenty of unoriginal subjects to photograph -- landscapes, sunsets, flowers, abandoned buildings -- what happens to the photographs that might be technically good and aesthetically pleasing, but aren't an original though?

So finally, with regard to my own work (and my own definitions), I think that I do make art from time to time, but I'm certainly not an artist. I'm just a photographer.

I like how you think that through, and can appreciate it for myself, as well.

I remember reading a quip that subtle theological questions are the least important, because they'll all be answered for me once I'm gone. Perhaps the question of whether I'm an artist should await the same resolution, leaving me free to take pictures until then.