Response to Lomography

When I discovered lomography, I thought - that's how I want my world to be seen. I loved the colours and the vibrancy and the pace that the pictures provoked. So, it was a no-brainer in what I wanted to talk about for my gleaning. However, I also wanted to tap into the minds of people who, you know, hated lomography, like Alfred. I had very rarely met someone who disliked lomography, and it is very interesting to see why they don't. 

I think the main questions I thought about is...what place does experimental photography have in art? Does the "don't think, just shoot" concept stray away from an artist's point of view? Or is lomography for people who just want to have fun? Yet, is that okay for them to publish books and have exhibits and call it art? We talked earlier in the semester about how an artist cannot be judged by one photograph, they should be judged by their array of work. So, does this come in the same way with lomography, if the photographs are supposed to be 'accidental', there isn't really a point in taking the photograph? Or is the point in achieving a sort of colourful, vibrant image? And if so, what does that mean?