How 'fine' Does It Have To Be?

Sean

Admin
Admin
Joined
Aug 29, 2002
Messages
13,061
Location
New Zealand
Format
Multi Format
I'm curious about "fine art" photography. From what I can see, the standards are set very high. I'm wondering, how 'fine' does one's own work have to be for acceptance into this unique club? If someone has great subject matter, but the print is lacking 1/2 zone in a small shadow in the bottom left corner of the print, is it thrown out? Would the small spot lacking the proper detail be considered a flaw and the print a failure in the realm of fine art? Are there fine art photographs out there which are not 100% 'perfect' yet considered masterpieces? I'd like to know what others think of fine art photography, and what the rules of it are founded on, etc.
 

Jorge

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2002
Messages
4,515
Format
Large Format
Well Sean you are in a tough situation. If you were in the US I would tell you go to one of the many galleries and look up the work by Paul Caponigro, Michael Kenna, Kenro Izu, etc, etc.....I do know, once you think you have the perfect print, do one more. If you go and show substandard work to a gallery, it is very hard to come back with better work. In this case first impressions are what matter.......If you show a print and people go Wow!...I think you have a live one.
 

Jim Chinn

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
2,512
Location
Omaha, Nebra
Format
Multi Format
I agree with Jdef. You need to be carefull about how you define "fine art".
a photograph can be technically perfect but have all the soul of a passport photo. There are those photographers who use craft to make an image that really speaks to us, but I would argue that most photographs that really ressonate with me are not technically perfect.

Is a fine art photograph a beuatiful image that is used for decoration? Is it a work that is collected because of the possible appreciation in value. Is a work defined as fine art on the basis of the artist? Maybe it is the period in which it was made, or the fact that it was an image that while technically flawed, had great social impact?

I think you have to look at photography the same as painting. masterpieces from many different concepts and styles. I personally would rate many Robert Frank, Eugene Smith, Ralph Gibson and Walker Evans images equally with Adams and Weston.
 

Robert Kennedy

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
746
Location
Just north o
Format
Medium Format
Yes, you do have to be careful. Simply labeling it doesn't make it so.

There is a guy in my city who runs around on the web shouting about his "Digital Fine Art Photography".

This man could not take a decent picture to save his life. I mean he somehow manages to hit every cliche' possible in the WORST sense while avoiding anything that might be artistic. His work does have all the soul of webcam image. I mean he is AWFUL. And I rarely say that. I have yet to see a picture of his that doesn't make me want to beat him to death with the collected works of Ansel Adams.

I mean BAD.

Yet in many of his descriptions of his work he talks about how his work is "fine art" and is "elevated, sometimes surreal and sometimes dada".

Apparently surreal means blasting the model with 10,000 W/S and tinting the resulting mess sickly orange. No kidding. I mean BAD. Almost cheap-porn magazine bad. But without even the porn aspect to jusitfy it's existance.

Fine art? No.
 

Robert Kennedy

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
746
Location
Just north o
Format
Medium Format
Yeah...I shouldn't have held back on that post......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…