What is "fine art" photography?

[blansky]

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.

But are you not just allowing an art gallery, a commercial enterprise, to make the definition of a genre of photography for you.

If XY Gallery says this is fine art, it is, and if they say it isn't, they are the final decision maker.

Doesn't work for me.

Commercial enterprises don't get to make these decisions.

Once photographs didn't even get into galleries. So allowing a commissioned seller to define art is giving them too much power.

They may or may not like it, but they don't get to define it.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Everything I do is fine art but only because I'm an egocentric egomaniacal SOB. Last night I microwaved and ate a frozen dinner. My every move was artful and perfect. This morning I finished that fine artwork and sent it on its way to the septic tank.

 

[blockend]

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.

I'm not sure I understand the question! If you're suggesting the images are fine art because they're technically accomplished images of famous people, I would have to disagree. The gallery system validates art because it's made by artists, one does not typically "do" fine art between the day job, although there are precedents. However commercial work may be seen, often in retrospect, as attaining the status of fine art because it transcends the usual expectations or conventions of the medium, or possesses some other unique quality. This is frequently via photographic galleries, which offer a different perspective on such work than a typical fine art gallery. Some work crosses over for various reasons, and there is a reappraisal of it in a broader art context.

 

[Vaughn]

...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.

Which goes back to blockend's "intentions"...or strength of vision, or whatever one wants to call it. Does the person have the technical ability and materials to carry out their intentions? If they are successful, it is art, and that's fine by me.

 

[blansky]

I'm not sure I understand the question! If you're suggesting the images are fine art because they're technically accomplished images of famous people, I would have to disagree. The gallery system validates art because it's made by artists, one does not typically "do" fine art between the day job, although there are precedents. However commercial work may be seen, often in retrospect, as attaining the status of fine art because it transcends the usual expectations or conventions of the medium, or possesses some other unique quality. This is frequently via photographic galleries, which offer a different perspective on such work than a typical fine art gallery. Some work crosses over for various reasons, and there is a reappraisal of it in a broader art context.

Famous people have nothing to do with what I mentioned. It was just a short history of his photography journey, which did not correlate to your definition of someone who set out to do "fine art" per se. But in my opinion IS fine art. Regardless that he was a celebrity photographer mainly.

And your assertion that the gallery system and their validations is the standard bearer of what at genre should be called is to me, as I stated in the last post, giving them too much power. And the fact that you differentiate between fine art gallery and photographic galleries and their perspectives still reveals to me that we are letting the "gallery system" make definition we have to live with.

And your final statement does state that the various work I've shown here does constitute "fine art" crossover from other genres which I believe it does.

My point is guess is I think you are using the "gallery system" to make definitions that I don't believe we should be allowing them to get away with. They are allowed to call things whatever they want, but we as photographers don't have to have work pigeonholed by their whims and wishes.

 

[blockend]

Which goes back to blockend's "intentions"...or strength of vision, or whatever one wants to call it. Does the person have the technical ability and materials to carry out their intentions? If they are successful, it is art, and that's fine by me.

Again, I think technical proficiency is a red herring. Photography has a technical component, but it would not typically be the overriding concern in deciding the ultimate artistic value of an image. As an example let's say an artist places a series of nine Polaroids in a frame, each progressively exposed, and his life's work has been about the nature of change and transformation through time. Technically, the images may be lousy, having no clear subject and only one of which has been allowed sufficient time to render a "good" exposure. Nonetheless within the context of all his previous work the piece is consistent and illustrates a new tangent on his existing work. It isn't "bad" photography because his intention was not to make "good" photography, it was an experiment with the medium to see whether it offered a different take on his principal artistic concern.

This is only an example, I'm not offering any opinion on the Polaroid process, or exposure as a metaphor, or the intrinsic quality of any ensuing images.

 

[Paul Howell]

How do you know if you are fine artist, take a look at the job description: from the UK but not the government, I did change some of spelling to American spelling.

Fine artist:
Job description

So you think you want to be a Fine artist?


Fine artists create original works of art, through a variety of media. They often specialize in a particular medium, which may be categorized in the following ways:
•two-dimensional work (drawing, painting, collage);
•three-dimensional work (sculpture, installation);
•four-dimensional work (moving images, performance).

Many artists also specialize in a subject and may concentrate on areas such as landscapes, portraits or abstract.

Fine artists can be commissioned to produce a piece of work or they can create their own pieces, which they then sell on, either directly to the public or through an intermediary such as a gallery or an agent.

They may also run art classes or be involved with community art projects.

Typical work activities

A fine artist will usually be involved in researching, planning and creating art work and their activities may include:
•generating ideas, idea development, sketching, making models;
•creating or developing a piece of work in response to a brief or commission;
•meeting deadlines;
•working in a studio or off-site and adhering to health and safety procedures;
•sourcing materials and developing relationships with suppliers;
•researching, visiting locations, interviewing people, using libraries and the internet;
•administration, correspondence, creating publicity;
•project planning, creating and managing a budget, financial planning, calculating expenditure;
•managing tax and self-employment issues;
•organisation and administration tasks associated with running a studio;
•writing project proposals for galleries, competitions or artist residencies;
•writing funding applications (public and private);
•applying for residencies and competitions;
•liaising with contacts, gallery owners, curators and other artists;
•curating individual and group shows;
•negotiating a sale or commission;
•self-promotion, networking, attending private views and other events;
•writing press releases;
•maintaining a portfolio which will typically include a website;
•evaluating a project and feeding back to the main funder or sponsor.

 

[blockend]

Famous people have nothing to do with what I mentioned. It was just a short history of his photography journey, which did not correlate to your definition of someone who set out to do "fine art" per se. But in my opinion IS fine art. Regardless that he was a celebrity photographer mainly.

And your assertion that the gallery system and their validations is the standard bearer of what at genre should be called is to me, as I stated in the last post, giving them too much power. And the fact that you differentiate between fine art gallery and photographic galleries and their perspectives still reveals to me that we are letting the "gallery system" make definition we have to live with.

And your final statement does state that the various work I've shown here does constitute "fine art" crossover from other genres which I believe it does.

My point is guess is I think you are using the "gallery system" to make definitions that I don't believe we should be allowing them to get away with. They are allowed to call things whatever they want, but we as photographers don't have to have work pigeonholed by their whims and wishes.

I'm not giving curators anything, I'm attempting to show how the gallery system works and how definitions of fine art are typically conceived. Photographers don't need to have their work pigeonholed. If their personal criterion is financial value, they can operate through the medium of advertising and fashion, and if they achieve recognition (which is as arbitrary and patron-client based as any gallery) they'll make plenty of cash. If it's to control how the image is seen they can put out a book, and have absolute control over sequencing and text. If they want notoriety and hits, they can make a website with images of them eating their own faeces in a sandwich. If they want to make beautiful black and white images of the local landscape, there's every chance the local library or town hall will exhibit their work. None of these require the fine art gallery system or the type of acknowledgement it deals in.

 

[Doc W]

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)

Blansky, I think you make an important point about the porous borders between these different categories. Generally speaking, "fine art" refers to what is usually called "art for art's sake," i.e., the art has no other purpose than to be art. Thus, artists can explore a particular medium without conforming to the rules or conventions of other forms of production, such as commercial art, which does not use the adjective "fine" since it has other purposes and motives. I am not saying that this is a hard and fast or even satisfactory definition, but I think it is at the heart of the discussion.

Further to this definition is the idea that there can be occasions when some work within in a category other than fine art transcends its own category and becomes regarded as fine art. This is the case with Karsh, I believe, and many others whose work was considered to have gone beyond the boundaries of commercial portraiture. There are many examples of artists whose work has come to be seen as fine art: Norman Rockwell was considered as "merely" an illustrator until only very recently; or WeeGee who is now regarded as an artistic chronicler of the dark underbelly of urban life rather than "merely" a news photographer. We can all think of others.

Some of you have said that "fine art" is just a marketing label and I suppose that is true to some extent, but I think that most of these definitions are quite malleable and have as much to do with how they are perceived by an audience as they do with the intention of the artist.

For sure, on some occasions it is nothing more than how a particular work (or body of work) is positioned within a market. My favourite example is the 1970s film "Emmanuelle." It was initially released in France as a soft porn movie. An American distributor bought the rights and in order to position it within a broader domestic market than the very limited porn theatre circuit, it was subtitled it and released to the art film market where it did very well, much better than if it had been dubbed and released it as soft porn. Subtitling is somehow artistic whereas dubbing is not. Go figure. That old "eye of the beholder" thing.

 

[Vaughn]

Again, I think technical proficiency is a red herring...

You are confusing technical proficiency with the ability to communicate using the tools available to the photographer. If any artist has a great concept but unable to communicate through the medium of his/her choice, then they fail.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Everything I do is fine art but only because I'm an egocentric egomaniacal SOB. Last night I microwaved and ate a frozen dinner. My every move was artful and perfect. This morning I finished that fine artwork and sent it on its way to the septic tank.

I am sure that you gave it your best.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

^^^ As best I'm able these days.

 

[blockend]

You are confusing technical proficiency with the ability to communicate using the tools available to the photographer. If any artist has a great concept but unable to communicate through the medium of his/her choice, then they fail.

The tools of photography are simple in the extreme. Take a piece of light sensitive photographic paper, cover one half and expose. If that fits your artistic ambition, job done. No requirement for tilt shift, cult lenses, dye transfer. If you do need those things to achieve your goal you'll need a skill set and a not inconsiderable financial investment. That investment should not be confused with the production of art.

 

[Vaughn]

Subtitling is somehow artistic whereas dubbing is not. Go figure. That old "eye of the beholder" thing.

Actually, how actors voice their lines, the pauses and such, are an important part of a movie...dubbing over is like not worrying about color balance when copying art.

 

[BrianShaw]

Actually, how actors voice their lines, the pauses and such, are an important part of a movie...dubbing over is like not worrying about color balance when copying art.

... but subtitling is OK. I appreciate subtitling on "foreign" films, and sometimes when accents are so pronounced as to be difficult to understand. As long as I can hear the original actors delivery...

EDIT: funny but true story. Way back when my best friend had a chance for a speaking role on an episode of a television series. His part was an Irish person, so he spoke with an Irish brogue. When it was released there was a viewing party as his house with all sorts of family and friends attending. When his character spoke, however, it was completely dubbed over by someone who had a better Irish brogue. He was offended and we all were shocked. I the long run it was probably a good decision. Okay... maybe you needed to be there, but its still funny to me.

 

[Vaughn]

The tools of photography are simple in the extreme. Take a piece of light sensitive photographic paper, cover one half and expose. If that fits your artistic ambition, job done. No requirement for tilt shift, cult lenses, dye transfer. If you do need those things to achieve your goal you'll need a skill set and a not inconsiderable financial investment. That investment should not be confused with the production of art.

Totally disagree. One's whole life goes into the production of art...including ones investment in learning the craft.

PS...sub titles are fine! Das Boot was good with subtitles...not so good with dubbing. Just one of the few movies I have seen both ways.

 

[Ian Grant]

It's an awful thread far off the truth.

However if a photographer is an artist they need to be able to contextualise their work, or have someone else to do it for them. By that I mean be able to explain what they are saying in their images and why.

Actually it's as Vaughn says above about actors, but we as photographers use images not words.

Ian

 

[blockend]

Totally disagree. One's whole life goes into the production of art...including ones investment in learning the craft.

If that were true much of the art in galleries would not exist. A substantial proportion of contemporary art is an exploration of and conversation with materials, not a technical mastery of them, even if such a thing were possible. Nor would there be any naïve art, art brut, outsider art, or any other variety unconcerned with craft skills. Art and craft split off from one another many years ago.

 

[blansky]

I'm not giving curators anything, I'm attempting to show how the gallery system works and how definitions of fine art are typically conceived. Photographers don't need to have their work pigeonholed. If their personal criterion is financial value, they can operate through the medium of advertising and fashion, and if they achieve recognition (which is as arbitrary and patron-client based as any gallery) they'll make plenty of cash. If it's to control how the image is seen they can put out a book, and have absolute control over sequencing and text. If they want notoriety and hits, they can make a website with images of them eating their own faeces in a sandwich. If they want to make beautiful black and white images of the local landscape, there's every chance the local library or town hall will exhibit their work. None of these require the fine art gallery system or the type of acknowledgement it deals in.

We I guess can agree to disagree on this and it illustrates the differences of backgrounds in photography and the influences, in this case the "gallery system" which in my opinion you allow to define the genre, just because they define it in their gallery. They as a photography middle man don't garner the same respect with me as they do with you.

I believe historically photographers defined their work as they produced it, and just because the agent you use to sell your work makes marketing decisions for how it should be termed, does not make those terms sacrosanct. The dictionary does not define the genre by what an art gallery uses as a criteria but by what the term historically means.

I get the feeling you live in a gallery world and are heavily influenced by the terms and limitations of their decisions, but that doesn't mean they are the judge and jury of the meaning of the genre.

 

[RobC]

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.

There are a few but most do photography as part of a "Fine Art" BA

see:

http://search.ucas.com/search/provi...y&ProviderQuery=&AcpId=&Location=&SubjectCode=

if you change the search to photography then there's a lot more

 

[cliveh]

I get the feeling you life in a gallery world and are heavily influenced by the terms and limitations of their decisions, but that mean they are the judge and jury of the meaning of the genre.

I think only time will be the the judge and jury of any image, but only if it survives the tides of time.

 

[blockend]

We I guess can agree to disagree on this and it illustrates the differences of backgrounds in photography and the influences, in this case the "gallery system" which in my opinion you allow to define the genre, just because they define it in their gallery. They as a photography middle man don't garner the same respect with me as they do with you.

I believe historically photographers defined their work as they produced it, and just because the agent you use to sell your work makes marketing decisions for how it should be termed, does not make those terms sacrosanct. The dictionary does not define the genre by what an art gallery uses as a criteria but by what the term historically means.

I get the feeling you life in a gallery world and are heavily influenced by the terms and limitations of their decisions, but that mean they are the judge and jury of the meaning of the genre.

You're dealing in pejoratives and confusing my observation of the system with my position on art. It's not a matter of having respect or otherwise, some curators are expert on their area of knowledge, others less so. I'm simply pointing out that curators are the people who control what gets hung in galleries. If you find a curator with a soft spot for 1980s record company promotional photography, and can weave a sufficiently coherent backstory on how an individual(s) changed perceptions of the artists involved via their photography, you may well get the work hung and rehabilitated in a gallery. If on the other hand you want to say the same style is "cool", you might be better served re-shooting it for fashion photography.

A photographer has control over what they describe their art as, but the public may not agree. Flickr is full of chintzy photographs with Joe Doe, Fine Art Photographer over an HDR landscape. The handwritten script doesn't mean Joe knows his art from his elbow.

 

[blockend]

There are a few but most do photography as part of a "Fine Art" BA

That would make more sense.

 

[blansky]

I'm simply pointing out that curators are the people who control what gets hung in galleries.

AGAIN, what curators do or don't do does not define a genre of photography.

It may define it for them or for you, or for what they hang BUT they do not define what the term fine art photography means.

That's because they didn't coin the term.

And although Wikipedia would not be an ultimate authority here is their definition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-art_photography

 

[pdeeh]

It really is a pleasure to read blockend's clear and thoughtful observations.
Though it does rather throw into relief the rather shoddy thinking that normally passes for debating points in this sort of thread