What is "fine art" photography?

[blansky]

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 ).

His career/business spanned a long time. And early on his celebrity portraits were for promotion and probably didn't pay.

I'm sure later in his life he didn't photograph the locals much but he was a downtown business studio. I'm sure as his notoriety and book sales took off his prices were through the roof. All the more reason the rich people of Ontario and the world would pay them. Don't forget Scavullo, Avedon and other famous NY fashion photographers were hired by rich people to photograph them and their families. Some LA guys like Herb Ritts day rates were $25,000.

I knew photographers in the 80s that charged very high prices, and the higher the prices the busier they were. The saying was, "how can a 16x20 be worth $10,000? The answer was if you can get it, that's what it's worth".

People wear gem free $60-80 thousand dollar watches and drive Bentleys and Mosbachs. Price is a status symbol.

Now these may not be "regular people" but they weren't celebrities either. Just rich people, carriage trade. In case some people aren't aware celebrities aren't considered carriage trade usually. In LA the carriage trade are producers, not the help.

 

[removed account4]

mattking&blanksy:

thank you for your insights !

 

[blockend]

People seem to be confusing photographs that are shot and lit to look like classical paintings, with fine art photography. Fine art photography has very little to do with the appearance of the image, and everything to do with the intention of the photographer and the reputation gained from his/her previous work.

 

[blansky]

People seem to be confusing photographs that are shot and lit to look like classical paintings, with fine art photography. Fine art photography has very little to do with the appearance of the image, and everything to do with the intention of the photographer and the reputation gained from his/her previous work.

While I agree "fine art" may sometimes be an intention of the maker and their reputation, I don't see any correlation with the concept that they have any relationship with paintings or even previous photographs. And I do think it has everything to do with the appearance of the image.

If I had to define fine art, it would almost always be black and white (for surrealism), timeless in it's environmental or human condition aspects, and engage the viewer in a rather profound way, emotionally or tickle us artistically.

And it covers all genres of photography, regardless of the intent of the photographer. Some examples of iconic fine art to me....

Avedon, Shrimpton and the elephants.

Migrant mother

HCBs street work

Herb Ritts work

Some of Ansel Adams

Some of Karsh

And whether you agree or not, these examples show than not one of them was set out as fine art project except maybe Adams, as some are photojournalists, fashion/product photographers, street photographers, scenic photographers and portrait photographers.

So perhaps a definition of fine art is a photograph that has the ability to surpass its genre and emerge into a whole other realm of existence that has little to do with it's original intent.

Much like a 57 Nomad was designed as a decent station wagon and ascended into the realm of art, or an interesting Eichler house rose to iconic status.

Perhaps it's those rare times when form transcends function or concept to become art.

 

[blockend]

And whether you agree or not, these examples show than not one of them was set out as fine art project except maybe Adams, as some are photojournalists, fashion/product photographers, street photographers scenic photographers and portrait photographers.

I don't believe any of those qualify as fine art photography, excellent photographs though they are in their own right. Adams comes closest because it was originally intended to be viewed in a gallery context, not because there is anything uniquely "fine art" about the image. To modern eyes the Ansel Adams is much more likely to fit in a photographic gallery than a fine art gallery.

The history of the perception of photography as a fine art is an interesting one in its own right. Current thinking would suggest that images which depend solely or largely on their photographic skill are not suitable candidates for fine art status, though technical skill may be part of their quality so long as the artistic narrative is dominant. Some photographers tread a line between fine photography and fine art; The Bechers and Joel-Peter Witkin come to mind. Others have overtly fine art pretensions (think any of the minimalist or destuctive use of photography among many others), some, like Adams, Karsh, Weston, are seen as fine photography, though an individual curator may redefine these in a particular context as fine art.

 

[BrianShaw]

My opinion tends to align with blockend's.

Fine art photography example: http://barbarakasten.net/

 

[frank]

But is that fine art photography, or photography of fine art?

 

[Vaughn]

I would say all those images are art. I will also say that the use of the word "fine" is not an indicator of quality, We do not have fine art, finer art and finest art...just fine art.

There is no line between fine photography and fine art, as there is no line that divides art.

 

[BrianShaw]

But is that fine art photography, or photography of fine art?

The former, I think. I believe all of those constructions are built specifically for the photograph rather than the photograph being made to document the construction. I could be wrong, but that is my understanding.

EDIT. As much as I like Kasten's work, I've never researched her enough to know if these constructs that she photographs actually have any endurance beyond the photograph itself.

 

[BrianShaw]

I would say all those images are art. I will also say that the use of the word "fine" is not an indicator of quality, We do not have fine art, finer art and finest art...just fine art.

There is no line between fine photography and fine art, as there is no line that divides art.

Well that might be true. I could live with that notion of dropping the word "fine".

I draw the line when using the word "fine" in terms of effort expended to create, and departure from reality, as well as quality of output. Most photographs of real stuff, no matter how good they are or how long the photographer fiddled with movements, exposure, etc might not be "fine". Some portraiture and some advertising leaves me feeling like I'm looking at fine art but most doesn't.

 

[blockend]

The former, I think. I believe all of those constructions are built specifically for the photograph rather than the photograph being made to document the construction. I could be wrong, but that is my understanding.

I would agree. Part of their appeal as fine art is the duration over which the same theme has been explored by the artist. This in itself is not a definition, but it is part of a wider picture of a serious artist exploring their oeuvre.

 

[blockend]

I will also say that the use of the word "fine" is not an indicator of quality

Fine in this context is a matter of intention, not intrinsic quality. Quality is almost impossible to define objectively in a photographic context. Does a medium format print contain more quality than a 35mm print because it has smaller grain? Is a studio shot better than a street photograph because it has more light? Those kinds of discussions rapidly become meaningless.

What we can explore are the intentions of the artist and how we respond to those intentions, which may, but probably will not be centred on the technical aspects of the image.

 

[Wayne]

Can someone recommend a fine art painter or fine art sculptor for me?

 

[BrianShaw]

Can someone recommend a fine art painter or fine art sculptor for me?

Thomas Kinkaid? Renoir? The crazy guy who painted irises?

Michelangelo?

 

[frank]

Can someone recommend a fine art painter or fine art sculptor for me?

Sure. Those folks are painters not listed as house painters in the phone book.

 

[RobC]

suggest you all do a search for university "fine art photography" courses and see what the courses involve as that is the closest you will get on what current thinking is about what it is.

I have noticed that some universities that used to offer fine art photography as a BA course in the UK have stopped offering it. Not all but I'm not sure it is considered a realistic career path.

 

[frank]

"Fine art" university programs are offered by some universities here in Canada and the US as well. Some universities specialize in only that program, with sub-disciplines, including painting, sculpting, and photography. My daughter recently graduated from OCAD-U in Toronto, in illustration. I went to Queens U, where I have a degree from the Faculty of Arts and Science. That would be liberal arts like english and history. My degree was from the science side, in biology and psychology. Queens has a Faculty of Fine Arts as well, as does the University of Toronto.

 

[Vaughn]

Fine in this context is a matter of intention, not intrinsic quality. Quality is almost impossible to define objectively in a photographic context. Does a medium format print contain more quality than a 35mm print because it has smaller grain? Is a studio shot better than a street photograph because it has more light? Those kinds of discussions rapidly become meaningless.

What we can explore are the intentions of the artist and how we respond to those intentions, which may, but probably will not be centred on the technical aspects of the image.

I agree with both you and Brian in concept. However I feel that you are still using "fine" as a measure of quality...the quality (or strength) of ones intentions. So you are still stuck with a making a very subjective decision when applying the word "fine" to art. If the artist's intention is to make a piece of art, then, IMO, it is fine art. If it is good art or not, is another subjective decision altogether.

I have no idea where your mention of film grain/studio lights/etc. even enters into the conversation here. But personally, I prefer not to separate the artistic intentions and the final result. Ansel preferred an unsharp print of a sharp concept over a sharp print of a fuzzy concept, but I think we both would prefer a sharp concept rendered in such a way that gives that concept wings. Too much "conceptural art" should have stayed as concepts!

 

[blockend]

suggest you all do a search for university "fine art photography" courses and see what the courses involve as that is the closest you will get on what current thinking is about what it is.

I have noticed that some universities that used to offer fine art photography as a BA course in the UK have stopped offering it. Not all but I'm not sure it is considered a realistic career path.

I'm surprised any UK universities offer "fine art photography" as a course title. In past decades there have been non-commercial photography degrees that differentiated themselves from professional photography courses, and there were fine art courses in which some practitioners used photography as their chosen medium, but "fine art photography" is a cumbersome guide to course content in any BA I can imagine.

 

[Wayne]

Can someone recommend a fine art painter or fine art sculptor for me?

That's interesting. I've never heard them called that.

 

[blansky]

I would agree. Part of their appeal as fine art is the duration over which the same theme has been explored by the artist. This in itself is not a definition, but it is part of a wider picture of a serious artist exploring their oeuvre.

I've no doubt we come from far different genres of photography and have developed our opinions in different spheres of influence and exposure, but I find the concept almost pretentious that a photographer, any photographer is a "fine art" photographer just because that's what he set out to produce. Or that's his reputation or marketing. "Today I'm going out to make some fine art".

Just as an example, Herb Ritts (not that I'm that much of a fan but just as an example) was a decent photographer in LA and because of his relationship with a young Richard Gere, and the headshots he did for him, he worked his way into being one of LA's top celebrity photographers, much like Mathew Rolston, Greg Gorman and others. It was the era of the REAL supermodels like Cindy Crawford and 5 others. His work then went to Madonna album covers etc etc and then out the the desert to do advertising work and personal work.

So if these images which are obviously thought out, are not what you would consider fine art, although done by a fashion/celebrity photographer, please post some pictures which you would consider fine art and explain how they differ in the mental approach the photographer took at the time.

 

[Vaughn]

Can someone recommend a fine art painter or fine art sculptor for me?

I think you needed a satire icon...

I believe your point was that the word "fine" (or perhaps "fine art") is not needed in those contexts. In the former, I would say "painter" just needs "art" so that no one recommends a house painter, and both could be dropped if one has been talking about art and people assume the same context for the question. For the latter, "fine art' could be dropped altogether, and people would assume you meant an artist.

 

[frank]

I've no doubt we come from far different genres of photography and have developed our opinions in different spheres of influence and exposure, but I find the concept almost pretentious that a photographer, any photographer is a "fine art" photographer just because that's what he set out to produce. Or that's his reputation or marketing. "Today I'm going out to make some fine art".

Just as an example, Herb Ritts (not that I'm that much of a fan but just as an example) was a decent photographer in LA and because of his relationship with a young Richard Gere, and the headshots he did for him, he worked his way into being one of LA's top celebrity photographers, much like Mathew Rolston, Greg Gorman and others. It was the era of the REAL supermodels like Cindy Crawford and 5 others. His work then went to Madonna album covers etc etc and then out the the desert to do advertising work and personal work.

So if these images which are obviously thought out, are not what you would consider fine art, although done by a fashion/celebrity photographer, please post some pictures which you would consider fine art and explain how they differ in the mental approach the photographer took at the time.

While I hesitate to tread on toes as esteemed as yours, and with all due respect, I think you are still linking the FINE part of the term to quality, which is simply not the case in the context of the term: fine art or more specifically, fine art photography.

 

[blockend]

I agree with both you and Brian in concept. However I feel that you are still using "fine" as a measure of quality...the quality (or strength) of ones intentions. So you are still stuck with a making a very subjective decision when applying the word "fine" to art. If the artist's intention is to make a piece of art, then, IMO, it is fine art. If it is good art or not, is another subjective decision altogether.

I have no idea where your mention of film grain/studio lights/etc. even enters into the conversation here. But personally, I prefer not to separate the artistic intentions and the final result. Ansel preferred an unsharp print of a sharp concept over a sharp print of a fuzzy concept, but I think we both would prefer a sharp concept rendered in such a way that gives that concept wings. Too much "conceptural art" should have stayed as concepts!

I have tried to reflect what the term means in current usage, in other words what response fine artists using photography would be likely to encounter if they took their portfolio to an art gallery. A curator would be less likely to be influenced by technical prowess than the individual's ambition for the work and their thought process developing it. So yes, in that context "fine" means the strength of ones intentions and how well they translate.

I mentioned technique and materials only to place them in the hierarchy of importance, clearly, they are not irrelevant, but the thread continues to throw up technical aspects as intrinsic to artistic value and I don't believe that is born out by fine art curation today. People are entitled to call their work anything they like, the system may not acknowledge their own valuation, critically or financially.

 

[blansky]

While I hesitate to tread on toes as esteemed as yours, and with all due respect, I think you are still linking the FINE part of the term to quality, which is simply not the case in the context of the term: fine art or more specifically, fine art photography.

My toes are not all that esteemed so tread away.

And I disagree that fine art does not indicate some level of expertise or quality.

Two people may take the same picture of the same landscape but it could easily be argued that one is fine art and the other is crap.

I think the definition of fine art is definitely tied to a level far greater than the fact that someone showed up with a camera. Or makes a habit out of taking pictures of trees or rocks.