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.
Interesting artist. I like his work. A lot of craft to it as well.
Increasingly, art is in the eye of the curator. Often know as the buyer, museum proprietor and valuer. Nice work.i guess art is in the eye of the beholder.
It's a term like artist. It has no meaning.
I use it for marketing my black and white photography.
It's merely a way to BS the public and try to elevate the work.
YMMD.
Increasingly, art is in the eye of the curator. Often know as the buyer, museum proprietor and valuer. Nice work.
having work in a gallery doesn't necessarily mean
you are trying to sell it.
Happy New Year Blansky! (there was a url link here which no longer exists) are greatly exaggerated!
Here "gallery" typically is used for a commercial gallery. And those do not exhibit work not for sale.
Terms are all contextual. One has to see a list of terms to understand the nuance of one vs. the other. I would submit that photographs fall into these general categories of purpose:
- Commercial: to serve the purposes of a business enterprise with product or service to offer
- Industrial: to serve the purposes of non-commercial illustrations of inanimate objects/processes
- Scientific: to convey academic elements of inanimate or animate things
- Illustrative: to portray a written concept via graphic example
- Journalistic: for the purposes of print media articles and stories
- Portraiture: to present a likeness of an individual (or small group) in a manner consistent with how you might see them in a chance encounter
- Fine Art: 'for the sake of Art' (and serving none of the preceding listed purposes)
My point is not whether these are right/wrong, or that this is a comprehensive list. I present it merely as a foil against which 'fine art photography' is validly distinguished from other forms of photography. Other comparative lists can exist, just as validly. Unless a context of a list is presented, it is merely a 'term'
Similary 'PC' can mean 'printed circuit', 'personal computer', 'process controller', 'politically correct'...until you have a CONTEXT to compare within, 'PC' is merely a 'term' with no definition.
I believe it is purely a marketing tool. The term art photography has become so wide spread that there was need for a new term: Fine art photography/photographer, it hasn't been around for too long.
I'm from Europe and the term 'Fine art photography' (literally, non translated) is gaining more and more popularity. The scheme seems to work.
Personally I think that a photographer is nothing more than a painter being a painter, a sculptor being a sculptor, etc. May the viewers decide what they want to call us and our work.
To each it's ego.
But there is a distinction between an art painter and a house painter.
I think that maybe "fine art photography" is used instead of just "art photography" is due to the common and respected/accepted use of the term "fine art".
If there is Adolf Hitler didn't know it]But there is a distinction between an art painter and a house painter.![]()
Of course I was referring to a painter creating a painting, not a white wall. It would be interesting to find out since when the term 'Fine art' is used. I lived in the US when I was a kid, art photography was existant, but I had never heard of the term 'Fine art' then.
Since ever I have a hard time understanding and using the word 'art' for my work. To me, art is mainly communication, between the person creating and the people viewing.
Aristotles once said:
'The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance'.
I couldn't agree less.
If there is Adolf Hitler didn't know it![]()
he also painted rocks ...
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.
.
I bet the park rangers were furious. Did they make him wash all the paint off afterwards?
But what he is famous for is his "fine art portraits" which were/are always of famous people. Not the local doctor, or families, which actually paid his bills. Those aren't considered fine art.
hi michael
did karsh photograph many regular people ?
from what I recall his sitting fee was extremely high ( like Bacharach when he was still in Boston )
Bacharach and Karsh had sitting fees ( in the 80/90s ) that were like 1,000$USD.
not sure of many regular people who could afford that kind of portrait ( the print was extra .. at least Bachrach's were ).
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY: ![]() |