Fine Art Status

removed account4 · Oct 19, 2012

make art, make good art, make art that pleases you, make art that pleases the commercial marketplace
make art that pleases others ... it is all the same, but drastically different ...

when someone has their work in a gallery, the gallery owner is a sales person, a contact to current and past customers "collectors:.
when someone starts to collect your "work" they want as much stuff (that is the same) as possible.
if you swerve off the road and start doing abstractions, instead postcard-esqe landscapes
the gallerist will suggest politely that you keep doing what you were doing, because his/her livelihood
depends on selling your work, not on you doing work to please yourself

it is the same as doing commercial work for IBM ... they don't want to see something different,
they want the same thing you showed them before ...

batwister · Oct 20, 2012

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/oct/19/photography-is-it-art

Not again, please, please not this again.

benjiboy · Oct 20, 2012

Once people who take photographs start refering to themselves as artists or fine artists, I try my best to avoid them.

eddie · Oct 20, 2012

benjiboy said:
Once people who take photographs start refering to themselves as artists or fine artists, I try my best to avoid them.

Are you saying photography can't be art? If photographs never rise to the level of art, I'd agree with you. But, since I often think it does, I'd have to disagree. If a photographer has created a work of art, why shouldn't he/she call him/herself an artist? It's a fairly generic term, which helps to define the photographer's goal.

Diapositivo · Oct 20, 2012

The definition of a branch of photography as "Fine art photography" has nothing to do with the useless "but is it art?" question as infinitely proposed on internet fora.

Photography is practiced by humanity mainly with some practical purpose. Imagine a product catalogue, a leaflet, a brochure, the photograph on your identity card, photographs to classify insects, to draw an inventory of a museum, pictures to illustrate gossip newspapers, to illustrate yesterday's foot-ball match, to document a war, or a famine, or a speech from some politician etc. etc.

When we say "photography" we include scientific photography, documentary photography, news photography, paparazzi-style photography, war photography, fashion photography, legal and forensic photography, pornographic photography etc.

A very small percentage of all photography produced has, instead, the purpose of creating something nice to hang on a wall. There must be a term to distinguish this "candidate to wall hanging" photography from all other kinds of photography. This term is "fine art photography".

Think of it as "a photograph created with the same purpose of a painting".

When people say "Fine art photography" they just mean "a photograph intended to be nice and hung on a wall". They just mean the purpose is only being pleasant to the eye without any practical further use.

By the same token a fine art ceramic plate is a piece of ceramics that you hang on the wall (because it has a nice colourful pattern) and is not intended to be used to eat soup. Since the times of the Etruscans and Greeks there are vases, kraters etc. that had no other purpose than adorning the house or the garden. They never saw water or wine in their life. They were "fine art kraters". Maybe they only had a geometric pattern on them. Their reason to exist was just aesthetic and not practical.

That said, IMHO "fine art photography" is not "art" in the highest sense as no photography is ever "art" in the highest sense, not even Saint Ansel's production. I see it more as a craft, the domain of skill and taste. Mestiere.

But it is legitimately called "fine art photography" because that is the linguistic convention to distinguish it from the other genres of photography.

blansky · Oct 20, 2012

Diapositivo said:
The definition of a branch of photography as "Fine art photography" has nothing to do with the useless "but is it art?" question as infinitely proposed on internet fora.

Photography is practiced by humanity mainly with some practical purpose. Imagine a product catalogue, a leaflet, a brochure, the photograph on your identity card, photographs to classify insects, to draw an inventory of a museum, pictures to illustrate gossip newspapers, to illustrate yesterday's foot-ball match, to document a war, or a famine, or a speech from some politician etc. etc.

When we say "photography" we include scientific photography, documentary photography, news photography, paparazzi-style photography, war photography, fashion photography, legal and forensic photography, pornographic photography etc.

A very small percentage of all photography produced has, instead, the purpose of creating something nice to hang on a wall. There must be a term to distinguish this "candidate to wall hanging" photography from all other kinds of photography. This term is "fine art photography".

Think of it as "a photograph created with the same purpose of a painting".

When people say "Fine art photography" they just mean "a photograph intended to be nice and hung on a wall". They just mean the purpose is only being pleasant to the eye without any practical further use.

By the same token a fine art ceramic plate is a piece of ceramics that you hang on the wall (because it has a nice colourful pattern) and is not intended to be used to eat soup. Since the times of the Etruscans and Greeks there are vases, kraters etc. that had no other purpose than adorning the house or the garden. They never saw water or wine in their life. They were "fine art kraters". Maybe they only had a geometric pattern on them. Their reason to exist was just aesthetic and not practical.

That said, IMHO "fine art photography" is not "art" in the highest sense as no photography is ever "art" in the highest sense, not even Saint Ansel's production. I see it more as a craft, the domain of skill and taste. Mestiere.

But it is legitimately called "fine art photography" because that is the linguistic convention to distinguish it from the other genres of photography.

I like your definition and your thought process.

Although I still think photography can achieve the level of art. And to me, beauty and art can be in the eye of the beholder. Therefore to me a photograph reaches the level of art when it evokes a deep emotional response from a viewer. And we can legitimately disagree on each given piece. Which is no different from a sculpture or a painting or a piece of music.

I don't however believe that because someone dreamed something up or created something that it automatically becomes art.

semi-ambivalent · Oct 20, 2012

cliveh said:
I once overheard a woman in a private art gallery in conversation with her friend say but darling, theyre all so affordable.

Give me her number.

Bill Burk · Oct 20, 2012

Diapositivo said:
When people say "Fine art photography" they just mean "a photograph intended to be nice and hung on a wall".

Fabrizio,

I don't mean to criticise your thoughtful presentation, but...

If you're right, then we are going to have a very short discussion.

semi-ambivalent · Oct 20, 2012

Diapositivo said:
...That said, IMHO "fine art photography" is not "art" in the highest sense as no photography is ever "art" in the highest sense, not even Saint Ansel's production. I see it more as a craft, the domain of skill and taste. Mestiere.

But it is legitimately called "fine art photography" because that is the linguistic convention to distinguish it from the other genres of photography.

Let me dip in here with a question. Do you say Photography 'is not "art" in the highest sense' because of, what? Why? Its reproducibility? Certainly the David is art in the highest sense and, although it could be reproduced, let's be serious; it's a one off. Is it uniqueness that is the basis? Is that why photography is not Art (as in artist) but Craft (as in artisan) in you view? I ask because I once saw a show of work by, I think, Kim Weston. One feature of the works for sale is that each piece had its negative permanently mounted on the back of the print. This was his attempt to provide uniqueness to the eminently reproducible photograph. I don't know if it worked for him.

cliveh · Oct 21, 2012

semi-ambivalent said:
I think, Kim Weston. One feature of the works for sale is that each piece had its negative permanently mounted on the back of the print. This was his attempt to provide uniqueness to the eminently reproducible photograph. I don't know if it worked for him.

They were probably copy negs

batwister · Oct 21, 2012

Diapositivo said:
A very small percentage of all photography produced has, instead, the purpose of creating something nice to hang on a wall. There must be a term to distinguish this "candidate to wall hanging" photography from all other kinds of photography. This term is "fine art photography".

When people say "Fine art photography" they just mean "a photograph intended to be nice and hung on a wall". They just mean the purpose is only being pleasant to the eye without any practical further use.

Enjoyed reading your post, but I have to say that I think you need to spend more time with contemporary photography, or more appropriately should I say, the modern language of photography - which has no meaningful translation for the term 'fine art'. I agree that people who do use the term tend to mean 'pleasant to the eye' and tend to refer to more traditional modes of image making practiced by craft oriented photographers. But would you call Burtynsky's work merely "pleasant to the eye"? Is it 'fine art' photography? I'd prefer to use simply 'art photography' in his case, because there is more than just a glaze of prettiness, shape, form and texture - the work is intellectually, environmentally and perhaps politically motivated, not just visually. What is visually compelling about his work, like the Old Masters, has a symbolic basis and carries deeper meaning - form follows function. With modern work like this - the cutting edge of photography - the term 'fine art' is only ever used disparagingly to describe superficial, conventional and traditional work, practiced with old ways of thinking. Burtynsky and the work of many on his level is not fine art photography. And I don't suppose it ever was, because he appears to have picked up the camera from the start with the mind of an artist - with a point of view and things to say beyond purely visual attractiveness.

Diapositivo said:
That said, IMHO "fine art photography" is not "art" in the highest sense as no photography is ever "art" in the highest sense, not even Saint Ansel's production. I see it more as a craft, the domain of skill and taste. Mestiere.

Photography is a medium used, to varying degrees of success, by artists.

I see 'fine art photography' as the first level of creative work that sells. I find it disheartening that the term is used most often by photographers themselves to pigeonhole their own work. Some of my pictures would probably fall into the 'fine art' realm and be regarded with suspicion by many for that reason. This is something I've tried to consciously move away from. But you'll notice a marked distinction between it and the work shown in the super galleries, and it's not just about quality, but mentality.

benjiboy · Oct 21, 2012

eddie said:
Are you saying photography can't be art? If photographs never rise to the level of art, I'd agree with you. But, since I often think it does, I'd have to disagree. If a photographer has created a work of art, why shouldn't he/she call him/herself an artist? It's a fairly generic term, which helps to define the photographer's goal.

Photography can be "Art" but very rarely it's mainly craft I.M.O., the World is awash with self proclaimed artists and fine artists, as my mother used to say " self advertizement is no recommendation ".
The idea that photography is art is a very recent concept mainly created by photographers agents and gallerys who want to sell their work, most of the most of the great photographers we admire who were producing work that we consider to be art these days, if you would have told them they were "Artists" at the time would have laughed in your face.

batwister · Oct 21, 2012

benjiboy said:
Photography can be "Art" but very rarely it's mainly craft I.M.O., the World is awash with self proclaimed artists and fine artists, as my mother used to say " self advertizement is no recommendation ".
The idea that photography is art is a very recent concept mainly created by photographers agents and gallerys who want to sell their work, most of the most of the great photographers we admire who were producing work that we consider to be art these days, if you would have told them they were "Artists" at the time would have laughed in your face.

I think you're judging the world of photography through the funnel of your own experience. You believe it's mostly craft because this is the only type of photography you've been exposed to. If you don't understand art photography just say and then, if you harbor any curiosity, spend some time with work heralded as such. This is what I did when I held similar beliefs about photography. I don't think you'd come back with the same opinions, that is, if you still allow yourself to be moved by such things, without judgment or silly superstitions.

Steve Smith · Oct 21, 2012

batwister said:
I think you're judging the world of photography through the funnel of your own experience. You believe it's mostly craft because this is the only type of photography you've been exposed to.

I think Ben has a point. Most photography is not art. More photographs are taken to illustrate things than are taken as art in themselves. Just about every item you can buy that has an instruction manual will be awash with pictures showing you how to use it or put it together. TV and magazines ar flooded with images of things in an attempt to make you buy them. There are photographs of things everywhere that are not intended to be art.

Photography can be art but often isn't in the same way as painting can be art but often isn't.

Steve.

benjiboy · Oct 21, 2012

Just because people buy pictures and put them on their walls doesn't mean they are art in many cases they are merely wallpaper, I recall one of my friends who was a painter at one of the exhibitions of his work getting into a terrible arguemant with a woman who was a rich socialite because he refused to sell her one of his paintings that she wanted because she told him "because it whent with her decor".

batwister · Oct 21, 2012

Steve Smith said:
I think Ben has a point. Most photography is not art. More photographs are taken to illustrate things than are taken as art in themselves. Just about every item you can buy that has an instruction manual will be awash with pictures showing you how to use it or put it together. TV and magazines ar flooded with images of things in an attempt to make you buy them. There are photographs of things everywhere that are not intended to be art.

Photography can be art but often isn't in the same way as painting can be art but often isn't.

Steve.

I agree that most photography isn't or doesn't try to be art, but it seemed to me his opinion was that photography made with artistic intent, is most often only craft. Which is a belief rooted in ignorance and limited understanding of creative photography. Which is what we've been talking about.

benjiboy said:
Just because people buy pictures and put them on their walls doesn't mean they are art in many cases they are merely wallpaper...

That's exactly what fine art photography intends to be, decoration. As opposed to simply art photography, which carries messages, symbolism and is made from an intellectual standpoint. This is the work people need to be looking at to gain a better understanding of the term 'fine art'. Even Ansel Adams had a problem with the term for the very reason that it had historical connotations in the broader arts (as well as photography even then) with mere decoration, for which his work was often criticised. Whereas Weston's work was further removed from the superficiality of 'fine art' because of its connections with modernism. I think both of them would be turning in their graves had they known such discussions were still going on.

benjiboy · Oct 21, 2012

My "belief rooted in ignorance and limited understanding of creative photography" is only based on fifty nine years experience as an active photographer, more than thirty years as a member of The Royal Photographic Society, and more than twenty as an official judge in photographic societys in the county I live in, and I've attended more photographic exhabitions than you've had hot dinners.

batwister · Oct 21, 2012

benjiboy said:
My "belief rooted in ignorance and limited understanding of creative photography" is only based on fifty nine years experience as an active photographer, more than thirty years as a member of The Royal Photographic Society, and more than twenty as an official judge in photographic societys in the county I live in, and I've attended more photographic exhabitions than you've had hot dinners.

Then I'm at a loss as to why you would say 'The idea that photography is art is a very recent concept mainly created by photographers agents and gallerys who want to sell their work'. It's a shame that in all those years you don't appear to have had any respect for the intent of the creative photographer, but imply that he is simply a pawn in the world of galleries. If that's not ignorant, it's certainly twisted.

eddie · Oct 21, 2012

The fact that most photographs aspiring to "art" status fail, doesn't mean that all fail to reach that level. The same could be said about painting, sculpture, etc.

cliveh · Oct 21, 2012

batwister said:
I agree that most photography isn't or doesn't try to be art, but it seemed to me his opinion was that photography made with artistic intent, is most often only craft. Which is a belief rooted in ignorance and limited understanding of creative photography. Which is what we've been talking about.

That's exactly what fine art photography intends to be, decoration. As opposed to simply art photography, which carries messages, symbolism and is made from an intellectual standpoint. This is the work people need to be looking at to gain a better understanding of the term 'fine art'. Even Ansel Adams had a problem with the term for the very reason that it had historical connotations in the broader arts (as well as photography even then) with mere decoration, for which his work was often criticised. Whereas Weston's work was further removed from the superficiality of 'fine art' because of its connections with modernism. I think both of them would be turning in their graves had they known such discussions were still going on.

So I assume that many photographers produce work that could be considered fine art and/or art? Perhaps putting a label on anything like this is not a good idea.

batwister · Oct 21, 2012

cliveh said:
So I assume that many photographers produce work that could be considered fine art and/or art? Perhaps putting a label on anything like this is not a good idea.

I think the only label here is 'fine art'. Art photography is a much broader concept, but like all art, the best definition might be that which is rooted in ideas beyond the visual. Anything else might be better called 'photography'. It's often the most talented photographers, producing the most beguiling photographs, that are hesitant to label their work art. Maybe for them it's because what they've chosen to explore in their work is 'something else'. Callahan and Cartier Bresson are two photographers I can think of whose work is 'something else', and the only comfortable definition is photography.

lxdude · Oct 21, 2012

You guys are a humble lot, honestly discussing which photography might be called art- given that most with a creative impulse and/or desire for attention label their actions art, even if it's piling up a bunch of junk in the middle of a gallery and calling it an installation or squawking like a chicken and calling it performance art, and it's accepted as such.

michaelbsc · Oct 21, 2012

cliveh said:
So I assume that many photographers produce work that could be considered fine art and/or art? Perhaps putting a label on anything like this is not a good idea.

I agree that the discussion ought to be about "some" rather than all.

Think about pottery. Clearly some pottery is made to be, and achieves, "fine art" status. But other pottery is just coffee cups in a rack.

No one argues that pottery isn't both utilitarian and a medium for art.

Someone brought up the medium point pages back. Clearly snapshots at a family gathering don't work their way up to art just because you have them in a scrapbook. Just as clearly images designed to evoke a response and staged appropriately are more than the memory jogging memento under grandmother's coffee table.

In my mind the art/memento dichotomy is determined by intent.

I'll stay out of the "fine" fray. That is fraught with hyperbole.

cliveh · Oct 21, 2012

The label can also change over time. Someone working at the V & A in London told me that at one time their collection of Atget photographs were catalogued under architectural photography, but eventually they had to reclassify them as art (or something along those lines). I am sure this is true for many other historic photographers.

benjiboy · Oct 21, 2012

batwister said:
Then I'm at a loss as to why you would say 'The idea that photography is art is a very recent concept mainly created by photographers agents and gallerys who want to sell their work'. It's a shame that in all those years you don't appear to have had any respect for the intent of the creative photographer, but imply that he is simply a pawn in the world of galleries. If that's not ignorant, it's certainly twisted.

You miss the point, I do "have respect for the intent of creative photographer", but as a skilled craftsman, not as a highfalutin, self styled "Artists".
I.M.O.some of the most creative work I have seen recently has been in commercial fashion and advertising photographraphy, that has no pretentions of being fine art .

Fine Art Status

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency