What is "fine art" photography?

AgX · Jan 9, 2016

In some languages the term "nude" itself is a term used in art-science to designate an artistic depictiction of nudity.
In German however there is the special term "Akt".

Alan Klein · Jan 9, 2016

RobC said:
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.

RobC · Jan 9, 2016

Alan Klein said:
Interesting artist. I like his work. A lot of craft to it as well.

His website: http://www.normanackroyd.com/

blansky · Jan 9, 2016

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.

blockend · Jan 9, 2016

jnanian said:
i guess art is in the eye of the beholder.

Increasingly, art is in the eye of the curator. Often know as the buyer, museum proprietor and valuer. Nice work.

benjiboy · Jan 9, 2016

Dunno, where do all the flies go in winter ?

NedL · Jan 9, 2016

blansky said:
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.

Happy New Year Blansky! (there was a url link here which no longer exists) are greatly exaggerated!

RobC · Jan 9, 2016

blockend said:
Increasingly, art is in the eye of the curator. Often know as the buyer, museum proprietor and valuer. Nice work.

If you want to sell your work via galleries then consider that most galleries are commercial and accept only work they think will sell so regardless of whether you think your work is commercial or not, if you want to sell it then it better be saleable in the eyes of the gallery owners/curators.

removed account4 · Jan 9, 2016

having work in a gallery doesn't necessarily mean
you are trying to sell it.

AgX · Jan 9, 2016

jnanian said:
having work in a gallery doesn't necessarily mean
you are trying to sell it.

Here "gallery" typically is used for a commercial gallery. And those do not exhibit work not for sale.

blansky · Jan 9, 2016

NedL said:
Happy New Year Blansky! (there was a url link here which no longer exists) are greatly exaggerated!

Thanks. Nice to be missed....I think.

I was in Australia for some of Nov and Dec, then was kind of busy.

removed account4 · Jan 9, 2016

AgX said:
Here "gallery" typically is used for a commercial gallery. And those do not exhibit work not for sale.

the gallery we owned didn't force anyone to sell work. café walls ( gallery space ) store front windows, hotel lobbies &c
that have galllery space, don't insist people sell their work either. sometimes it is to get exposure, not sell things ...
while i know these might not be "typical" examples of galleries ... but they are galleries just the same.

mdarnton · Jan 9, 2016

Here you go. You can stream it from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Untitled-Adam-Goldberg/dp/B0043U5SPK/

[video=youtube;w3Kgmv6BrEo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3Kgmv6BrEo[/video]

Doc W · Jan 9, 2016

wiltw said:
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.

Wilt, this is an excellent overall description of the field. I doubt that those with perennially out of joint noses will appreciate it and will prefer to ridicule and demean.

carioca · Jan 9, 2016

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.

frank · Jan 9, 2016

carioca said:
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".

carioca · Jan 9, 2016

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.

benjiboy · Jan 9, 2016

frank said:
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".

]But there is a distinction between an art painter and a house painter.

If there is Adolf Hitler didn't know it

frank · Jan 9, 2016

carioca said:
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.

Here in Canada, there university programs referred to as liberal arts (English, history, etc), and fine arts. (painting, sculpting, etc)

removed account4 · Jan 9, 2016

RE: house painter vs. painting painter

a friend used to paint walls often, actually painted my wall after it was repaired,
he also painted rocks, murals, canvases and other things. sometimes there is no distinction.

benjiboy said:
If there is Adolf Hitler didn't know it

i believe a playright once said " he could paint 1 room, 2 coats in an hour!" or something like that

pdeeh · Jan 10, 2016

jnanian said:
he also painted rocks ...

I bet the park rangers were furious. Did they make him wash all the paint off afterwards?

blansky · Jan 10, 2016

MattKing said:
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.
.

An interesting aside to this is that Karsh was a studio portrait photographer, like I was, and shot weddings and all the other stuff that studio portrait photographers do and thousand of other portrait photographers do.

He operated out of Ottawa, the capital of Canada, and to enhance his carriage trade marketing, for his every day clientele, he endevoured to photograph as many dignitaries and famous people as possible.

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.

Which then raises the issue, why not. Is it because famous people elevated the work in the eyes of the public.

Which again falls into the " if you wish to be a famous photographer, photograph famous people."

Why is the local doctor, not fine art.

So maybe the "portrait" definition of fine art, is photography made to entice people who are impressed with famous people. If the subject is famous, the picture has immediate elevated status. ( see Annie Leibovitz)

removed account4 · Jan 10, 2016

pdeeh said:
I bet the park rangers were furious. Did they make him wash all the paint off afterwards?

naaah, not boulders ... rocks

he'd find a rock that had an interesting shape and he'd paint something on it and give them to friends and family
or sell them so people could have "rock art"
if you ever are in Boston / Cambridge mass, he painted murals inside some of the local businesses ..
there is one inside the central square location of the 1369 .. ( maybe it's gone now, it's been 20 years )

I have a friend who rented living space from someone who called himself a "fine artist"
no one could figure out what he meant ... I think at this point it's something that has lost some of its meaning
whether it's a painter who uses it or a skilled draftsman or a photographer.
or, maybe it's for the caviar and champagne crowd, and to have fine art in front of your name you need
soft classical music and fancy cursive script on our website ... I don't have fancy script or classical music
on mine and I get a headache from champagne

removed account4 · Jan 10, 2016

blansky said:
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 ).

MattKing · Jan 10, 2016

jnanian said:
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 ).

I'm not Michael, but ...

Karsh maintained a regular studio, and he did photograph regular people. And in later years he was probably very expensive.

His brother, Malak, was also fairly busy as a photographer: http://ottawacitizen.com/entertainm...s-canada-acquires-huge-malak-karsh-collection

I think the reason Karsh's portraits of famous people are different is because the "art" comes from the interpretation of the subject. While there may be as much "art" in a portrait taken by Karsh of the local bank manager as there is in the portrait taken by Karsh of Winston Churchill, the fact that most of us know far more about Winston Churchill than we do about that bank manager influences our appreciation of those portraits.

It is sort of like classical music. The art is both in the music as originally created, and as individually performed. A recent performance is a new piece of creative art. As is a well accomplished portrait.

What is "fine art" photography?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency