is it art or fact?

just went to an exhibition of photographs "made" by a professor of fine arts at glasgow called thomas joshua cooper...anyhow...
I didnt know what to think or say about them!
all of his photographs were based on the project of points of no return...taking pictures of the waters of the atlantic...usually with land in.
they were spectacular photographs with long exposures and all in black and white...but what cant get around my head is...
was it art...or was it just looking at a photograph?
I was analysing them and saying well thats caused by this etc...but at same time being mediatated by its beauty.
im stuck in the land of art and analysis.

my question to you all...
when does taking a picture become art?

when there is a concept behind it. If you want to take a picture to represent something, it then becomes art

When it expresses more than what is actually there. When you look at it and see the artists thoughts and feelings, when it becomes a part of a personality rather than a series of objects/subjects.

I think art is how you see it, it differs from person to person. It's the composition, the colour, the atmosphere that makes a photograph artistic. You look at it, and it paints a picture, you see a story or a series of events...

Thats my view anyway

It is art if you think it is art. That simple.