What is "fine art" photography?

removed account4 · Jan 8, 2016

people should be able to call their stuff whatever they want,
it really isn't up to the peanut gallery of apug to determine what is and isn't valid to call photographic images.

over the years i have heard a lot of interesting things
someone suggests only portraits are real photographs,
another suggestes that a photographic print is not a photograph, the NEGATIVE is ..
others say rc prints aren't and shouldn't be called silver gelatin prints ...
it is just opinions of just a few, and not the opinions of most of the people making photographs.

Vaughn · Jan 8, 2016

RobC said:
The point is that it was invented as a marketing term and...

Don't give a hoot about what folks want to call inkjet prints (except calling inkjet prints using carbon-based inks, "carbon prints" -- don't like that...that name was already taken 150 years ago.)

It was the "Calling a landscape print fine art photography" part which I strongly disagree with.

Editted: Okay, got your drift. I mis-understood your original meaning. Still do not agree with it, but just -1.

Too bad the word "Fine" seems to have a sense of superiority about it when used in the context of arts and crafts. That seems to be the hang-up of many. The only alternative I can think of to separate the type of photography I do from the various types of commercial work and family/friends snapshots, would be be "Personal photography". But that leaves out the educational aspects of my work, trying to connect with the viewer, and the fact that I striving to produce art --something beyond pretty pictures of things I like.

RobC · Jan 8, 2016

dpn said:
Fine Art Photography: When one wants to shoot nudes, but doesn't want to be called a pervert.

Half joking.

Methinks you're not joking at all and you have a point. All done in the best possible taste of course

mdarnton · Jan 8, 2016

If it sells, it's art. If it sells for a lot of money, that's fine. If you die, and it continues to sell for a lot of money, it's "museum quality". If it doesn't continue to sell, everyone who thought it was art when you were alive was wrong..

CropDusterMan · Jan 8, 2016

Personally, I have never been overly fond of the term "Fine Art Photography"...it sounds a little pretentious.

Vaughn · Jan 8, 2016

mdarnton said:
If it sells, it's art. If it sells for a lot of money, that's fine. If you die, and it continues to sell for a lot of money, it's "museum quality". If it doesn't continue to sell, everyone who thought it was art when you were alive was wrong..

Perfect! Even the grammar!

scheimfluger_77 · Jan 8, 2016

frank said:
Simple: fine art is the opposite of commercial art.

Then everything I do must be "fine..." Since I don't do commercial.

DREW WILEY · Jan 8, 2016

If you're fine-ally done deciphering what fine art actually means, the image in question must indeed be fine art, otherwise you'd still be arguing whether it fits those parameters or not. Things were easier back when the Oracle at Dephi made such decisions, or a drunken Druid
priest could tell by noticing which horn the head of an ox landed on after he tossed it.

frank · Jan 8, 2016

scheimfluger_77 said:
Then everything I do must be "fine..." Since I don't do commercial.

You're welcome! But remember, "fine" in this context does not necessarily mean "good".

Truzi · Jan 8, 2016

The OP is mentioned photographing dogs. Perhaps we can't agree on what Fine Art is, but can we at least agree it is NOT anything with dogs playing poker?

Sirius Glass · Jan 8, 2016

Especially if it is painted on velvet.

blockend · Jan 8, 2016

In a gallery context, fine art photography indicates that the maker sees themselves primarily as an artist, not a photographer. Some fine art photographers are fine photographers (Hand made prints from 10 x 8" colour negatives, for example), others use photography as a way to explore their viewpoint (torn photocopies from a digital point and shoot, or similar). The point being that the fineness of the photograph and the fineness of the art should not be confused.

alanrockwood · Jan 8, 2016

Truzi said:
The OP is mentioned photographing dogs. Perhaps we can't agree on what Fine Art is, but can we at least agree it is NOT anything with dogs playing poker?

My Dad's friend, Casey, once had a poker playing dog. All of Casey's friends thought it was amazing. Imagine that, a poker playing dog! BUT Casey knew it wasn't so amazing, because every time that dog got a good hand it would wag its tail.

removed account4 · Jan 8, 2016

this guy has poker playing dogs too,
and gold encrusted grapes
and busts of solid gold
and a pigmy giraffe
and best of all TV
[video=youtube;LXDIS3NzB84]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXDIS3NzB84[/video]

MattKing · Jan 8, 2016

There is a portion of modern Art that relies on irony for part of its message.

So a "Fine Art piece" which includes dogs playing poker is not impossible.

In the realm of photography, the term "Fine Art" serves two purposes:

1) it is used to distinguish a photograph from other photography that is created for other purposes - record photography, commercial photography, event photography, portrait photography, etc..;
2) it is used to describe the environment and audience that the photography is intended to participate in.

In essence, it is a term of classification, not quality.

It always becomes interesting when "Fine Art" is confused with "Art" as a descriptor.

Photography in any of the other classifications - record photography, commercial photography, event photography, portrait photography, etc.. - can rise to the status of Art. Karsh comes to mind as an example. When it does rise to that status, it is often re-packaged as Fine Art - published in books, displayed in galleries, acquired by museums.

IMHO, the fact that photography prepared for one purpose can achieve status as Fine Art is a good thing. Just as it is a good thing that a photographer devoted to preparing photographs solely for artistic purposes can be recognized for their work.

RobC · Jan 8, 2016

view this two part mini documentary and comment on how this artist shunned the modern art movement and ploughed his own furrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u94DxOP51M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7SroSYrJF0

in short, follow your own nose and don't get sucked into whats trending: Only dead fish go with the flow.

eddie · Jan 8, 2016

MattKing said:
In essence, it is a term of classification, not quality.

Matt has the answer, and it only took 10 words.

Arklatexian · Jan 9, 2016

What is "Fine Art"photography?

ChristopherCoy said:
I like photographing dogs. I'm an animal person, and I believe I have a knack for it. I could show you some of my previous work, but its mostly all created with that alternative method.

I did a quick google search for "fine art dog photographer" and came up with a myriad of photos from "fine art photographers" but they were more like "fine portraits" to me. I didn't really see anything that I would personally consider "fine art."

So what determines whether a photo, or body of work is considered "fine art?" Does the photographer determine that? The viewer? The checkbook holder?

Maybe you are being too narrow in your definition of "Fine Art". I personally think that most of Karsh's portraits are indeed "fine art". But even other forms of portraiture can also be called "fine art". One of the best Chimpanzee pictures I have ever seen was a portrait of the Chimp using portrait lighting. I had a good friend who shot dog shows for a living. Some of the dog owners would ask him to shoot portraits of a favorite dog. He knew how to pose the dog and what the dog should look like for best results and to me his dog pictures were truly "fine art"..........Regards!

ChristopherCoy · Jan 9, 2016

jnanian said:
people should be able to call their stuff whatever they want,
it really isn't up to the peanut gallery of apug to determine what is and isn't valid to call photographic images.

I agree, but that's partly why I'm asking.

I've had a pet photography business in the past, for which I made some good side money. I'm contemplating another go at it for a few extra bucks here and there, but I don't want to mis-label, or mis-represent my product.

ChristopherCoy · Jan 9, 2016

CropDusterMan said:
Personally, I have never been overly fond of the term "Fine Art Photography"...it sounds a little pretentious.

Agreed again.

pdeeh · Jan 9, 2016

MattKing said:
It always becomes interesting when "Fine Art" is confused with "Art" as a descriptor.

It is also a mistaken understanding of the use of the term "fine art", which has been used in conjunction since the 19thC (possibly 18thC) with the term "applied art" to distinguish - roughly speaking, though of course the terms and what they distinguish have been debated and disagreed upon ever since their coinage - between "art for art's sake" and art made for commercial or public purposes.

I'm quite amazed that no-one who has contributed thus far to the thread is aware of the latter.

(and there will of course be those who disagree radically with my terribly loose "definition" of the two terms).

Oh well, these sorts of public forum debates are never very useful, and really only serve to allow people with entrenched or reactionary viewpoints to air them.

ChristopherCoy · Jan 9, 2016

I guess when I think of "fine art", specifically "fine art dog photography", I think of something that isn't just a dog looking at a camera.

The home page on this website is a good example.
http://www.dog-flash.com/Home.html

Or this image;
http://api.ning.com/files/DtcI2O2Ry...SjDqZvYl9R-0nj7qhFYQQtjRQ07lL/1082128195.jpeg

Even something like this;
http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/w...og-portrait-photography-elke-vogelsang-11.jpg

To me these are "fine art" because there is an element of abstractness that makes you stop and examine it further. Yes we know it's a dog, but its not just a photo of a dog looking at the camera. It isn't so literal.

blockend · Jan 9, 2016

I'm never sure whether these threads are a thinly veiled opportunity to rant about "the emperor's new clothes", or a question regarding the status of someone's own work in a curatorial context. The issue would be decided by how the individual approaches their own work, and whether their narrative was consistent with the role of the artist. Stephen Gill is someone who would be widely considered a photographic artist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5foLoTcDXdE Cindy Sherman is another.

There are other issues at play in defining what is fine art, for instance outsider art may be entirely untutored, but resembles fine art practice in its single-mindedness and exclusion of convention. Also work that would not have been considered fine in its day - Gill's curation of one wedding photographer's depiction of kisses - is reappraised as fine in retrospect.

Steve Smith · Jan 9, 2016

jnanian said:
this ought to be a fun thread !

Like the seventeen similarly titled threads we've had in the past?!!

On a related subject, on another forum, there are many members who post photographs of nude models with the thread title 'Art Nude' I can never work out how an art nude differs from an ordinary nude!

Steve.

removed account4 · Jan 9, 2016

Steve Smith said:
Like the seventeen similarly titled threads we've had in the past?!!

On a related subject, on another forum, there are many members who post photographs of nude models with the thread title 'Art Nude' I can never work out how an art nude differs from an ordinary nude!

Steve.

EXACTLY !

i ws going to link to the 19 differen threads in my original post but i decided not to bother
regarding the other forum .. i guess art is in the eye of the beholder.

What is "fine art" photography?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency