What is "fine art" photography?

[RobC]

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.

As we know, the meaining of words and phrases changes with usage over time and that is a problem becasue it is subjective according to current usage which may not match with what some of us old hands consider it to mean. In short this means any labeling today will either be considered contemporary labeling or old labeling by whoever happens to read it.

Again, a very good reason to just call yourself a photographer and your work photography or maybe landscape photography if thats what you happen to do. Let the viewer decide if its fine art photography for themselves. And if they ask you can tell them that many people would consider it fine art photography but its not a label you use to describe it yourself since its such a subjective interpretation. If someone needs to be told its "art" then what do they know?

 

[Vaughn]

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.

I said nothing about needing to technically perfect ones artistic medium to be considered an artist...I did not even hint at that.

But if an artist can not communicate, then their art most likely is not in art galleries. Knowing the language of the medium (its history, materials and technical aspects) can broaden ones vocabulary and help increase communication skills...but as you pointed out, total knowledge and mastery of the medium's skill set and the use of only the highest quality materials are not necessary.

 

[Sirius Glass]

As snapshots are to photographs are as photographs are to fine art photographs.
Or as it would appear on an SAT exam ==> snapshotshotographs:hotographs:fine art photographs

 

[blockend]

I said nothing about needing to technically perfect ones artistic medium to be considered an artist...I did not even hint at that.

But if an artist can not communicate, then their art most likely is not in art galleries. Knowing the language of the medium (its history, materials and technical aspects) can broaden ones vocabulary and help increase communication skills...but as you pointed out, total knowledge and mastery of the medium's skill set and the use of only the highest quality materials are not necessary.

If you want to be hung in a gallery, I'd suggest familiarity with the language of art is of more use than any other skill set. If you don't seek to be shown in a gallery all kinds of other factors come into play, and you can call yourself whatever you want. Someone knowledgeable may come along and identify what you do as art, but there's a fair chance the appraisal will be posthumous if occurs at all. These kinds of threads usually have an agenda that asks "why isn't my work appreciated as fine art, and why aren't I rich and famous." The answer may be because they're terrible at what they do, or their aspirations may not match those of the people who get to say what art is in white cube spaces. Often, at least in my experience, it's because they do a very good riff on Martin Parr, or Ansel Adams, or William Eggleston while forgetting those people cornered the market in being themselves first.

 

[blansky]

If you want to be hung in a gallery, I'd suggest familiarity with the language of art is of more use than any other skill set. If you don't seek to be shown in a gallery all kinds of other factors come into play, and you can call yourself whatever you want. Someone knowledgeable may come along and identify what you do as art, but there's a fair chance the appraisal will be posthumous if occurs at all. These kinds of threads usually have an agenda that asks "why isn't my work fine art, and why aren't I rich and famous." The answer may be because they're terrible at what they do, or their aspirations may not match those of the people who get to say what art is in white cube spaces. Often, at least in my experience, it's because they do a very good riff on Martin Parr, or Ansel Adams, or William Eggleston while forgetting those people cornered the market in being themselves first.

But the OPs question was not, do you want to be hung in an art gallery. The OPs question was, what is fine art photography.

Earlier I showed pictures of what I believe fine art photography to be, and in most or a lot of cases it was photography that was shot for another reason but yet by virtue of it's appeal, elevated itself to a more "arty" realm than it was originally intended. You disagreed.

You said it had to be pre thought out as "fine art" and in fact it didn't really have to have much appeal at all.

SO I just googled a few fine art photography venues in the US and in their list of artists there seem to be a lot of what I described and even a couple of examples of the work I showed in one of the posts.

http://www.jankesnergallery.com/jkg/artists/

http://www.jacksonfineart.com/artists.php

http://lumieregallery.net/wp/category/all-artists/

http://www.photographysites.com/featured

So obviously what is fine art in the UK and what is fine art in the US differs, or else your definition is completely derived by gallery-speak and what they choose to hype and not any real definition of the term.

 

[pdeeh]

Ooh that's interesting ... What is a "real definition" ... ?

 

[blockend]

But the OPs question was not, do you want to be hung in an art gallery. The OPs question was, what is fine art photography.

Earlier I showed pictures of what I believe fine art photography to be, and in most or a lot of cases it was photography that was shot for another reason but yet by virtue of it's appeal, elevated itself to a more "arty" realm than it was originally intended. You disagreed.

You said it had to be pre thought out as "fine art" and in fact it didn't really have to have much appeal at all.

SO I just googled a few fine art photography venues in the US and in their list of artists there seem to be a lot of what I described and even a couple of examples of the work I showed in one of the posts.

http://www.jankesnergallery.com/jkg/artists/

http://www.jacksonfineart.com/artists.php

http://lumieregallery.net/wp/category/all-artists/

http://www.photographysites.com/featured

So obviously what is fine art in the UK and what is fine art in the US differs, or else your definition is completely derived by gallery-speak and what they choose to hype and not any real definition of the term.

You've misrepresented almost everything I've said, while personalising the discussion. I very much doubt whether the global art photography market differs in anything more than details.

 

[blansky]

You've misrepresented almost everything I've said, while personalising the discussion. I very much doubt whether the global art photography market differs in anything more than details.

I think I detailed exactly what transpired but we can agree to disagree and move on.

 

[frank]

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.

This explanation jives with my own thoughts on this topic. Thanks!

 

[OptiKen]

The Belanese have a saying, "We have no art. We do everything as well as we can"
What is considered 'art' (fine or otherwise) is really so subjective there IS no definition.
If I take a photo of my drivers license; repeat that image several times on a piece of paper; mat it and frame it and hang it on a wall (museum, gallery, office, any...), it will be considered 'art'. If I took pieces of yesterday's newspaper and glued them on cardboard, matted it and framed it, Viola!. Instant art. The adjective, 'fine', doesn't really mean anything. It merely pre-qualifies an object that you may not have even seen yet, let alone judged.
"We have no art. We do everything as well as we can."

 

[blockend]

I think I detailed exactly what transpired but we can agree to disagree and move on.

I disagree with both your representation of what I said, and you depiction of fine art as being something contained in the photographic image devoid of any other context. I particularly object to the common idea that technical proficiency is a major indicator of artistic merit, exclusive of the individual creating it, which is often aired in this thread.

There are numerous galleries trading in photography and other art forms who describe themselves as purveyors of fine art, whose work would not be accepted as such by serious galleries anywhere in the world. People can describe what they do in any way we choose, I believe there's consensus on that point, but the rest of the discussion is mired in misplaced and misplaced questions of "what is art?" Art is what artists produce and art collectors buy.

 

[blansky]

I disagree with both your representation of what I said, and you depiction of fine art as being something contained in the photographic image devoid of any other context. I particularly object to the common idea that technical proficiency is a major indicator of artistic merit, exclusive of the individual creating it, which is often aired in this thread.

There are numerous galleries trading in photography and other art forms who describe themselves as purveyors of fine art, whose work would not be accepted as such by serious galleries anywhere in the world. People can describe what they do in any way we choose, I believe there's consensus on that point, but the rest of the discussion is mired in misplaced and misplaced questions of "what is art?" Art is what artists produce and art collectors buy.

Like I said we can agree to disagree.

But the term "serious gallery" put up a red flag. And may be an oxymoron.

At one time a Picasso was not suitable for a "serious gallery". But I agree there is lots of crap out there and in reality anyone can make any claim or sell anything.

But I still disagree with you on what constitutes "fine art photography", and I appreciate your point of view.

 

[blockend]

Like I said we can agree to disagree.

But the term "serious gallery" put up a red flag. And may be an oxymoron.

At one time a Picasso was not suitable for a "serious gallery". But I agree there is lots of crap out there and in reality anyone can make any claim or sell anything.

But I still disagree with you on what constitutes "fine art photography", and I appreciate your point of view.

For serious, read expensive. Few artists stay with a gallery who sells their work for £200 when they have the opportunity to sell for £20,000. Both may describe themselves as purveyors of fine art photography. Which would you trust with your reputation more?

 

[MattKing]

Art is what artists produce and art collectors buy.

This is the nub of the issue.

If you use this definition for "Art", then you are limiting "Art" to a subset of a largerer group of things that many others consider to be "Art".

It is a perfectly acceptable choice to make, but it needs to be seen as a choice.

If you want to participate in the world of art galleries, curators, agents and sales to art collectors it is useful to make this choice.

If you want to sell to Ikea, and have your images on "Art" posters throughout the world, you will be making another choice.

 

[blockend]

This is the nub of the issue.

If you use this definition for "Art", then you are limiting "Art" to a subset of a largerer group of things that many others consider to be "Art".

It is a perfectly acceptable choice to make, but it needs to be seen as a choice.

If you want to participate in the world of art galleries, curators, agents and sales to art collectors it is useful to make this choice.

If you want to sell to Ikea, and have your images on "Art" posters throughout the world, you will be making another choice.

Ikea images are basically commercial photography, like fashion, advertising, photojournalism. It doesn't mean they can't be great images, whether they're art depends on who's describing them as such. Fine art includes factors such as originality, context, history, how many people like your work and how much they're prepared to pay for it. It costs me nothing to click "like" on Flickr, but rather more to get my wallet out. I frequently dislike fine art photographs, but my taste is irrelevant if people are prepared to pay four or five figure sums for the same piece.

People buy fine art photographs for all kinds of reasons. Garry Winogrand felt his images were often bought by people who wanted to buy social status among their peers. He didn't understand why anyone would want them on a wall in their home.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sometimes the asking price in a swank gallery merely informs you that a sucker is born every day. I have literally met people who came to the US to invest in "fine art" returning home with black velvet paintings. But even those weren't half as hokey as some of the "fine art" photos I've seen for sale for five figures in glitzy tourist galleries. At one point, I had wholesale price lists of mass-produced posters that were selling for thousands a dollars apiece in galleries in places like the SF waterfront. In many cases, they weren't worth anywhere near as much as the frame they were put in, maybe only ten to fifteen bucks wholesale. But suckers would get talked into "investing" in such trash. Reminds me of my cats. The smallest cat bluffs and fluffs and yowls the best, so can chase off a tomcat four times her size.

 

[Vaughn]

If you want to be hung in a gallery, I'd suggest familiarity with the language of art is of more use than any other skill set...

FWIW, I am represented by a 'serious' and internationally known art gallery...so I do not think there is a language or vocabulary problem.

Edited to add: But thinking about it, my language in the field of art is not great, and does need to be increased. Thank you for the reminder, truely.

My degree was a BS in Natural Resources Management and I worked in that field for 12 years before jumping ship and becoming the darkroom tech for a university art department for 23 years. I loved helping students figure out ways to get their ideas (often still forming as we talk) onto film, what type of camera and film might best fit their needs, how the student wanted to go from the negative to a piece of paper, and how to present it. Knowledge of art history was thankfully not required for the job -- I left that up to the professors, but I have picked up some through osmosis, the photo classes I completed at the same university, and general curiosity in my readings.

But my point is that I have seen ideas/concepts change and grow with the introduction of new possibilities, new knowledge of the tools, and even just discovering new display options. I consider all parts of my creative process to be equally important...with the finished print being part of the process. I am sure others approach their way of working differently and I am certainly cool with that.

 

[blockend]

Sometimes the asking price in a swank gallery merely informs you that a sucker is born every day. I have literally met people who came to the US to invest in "fine art" returning home with black velvet paintings. But even those weren't half as hokey as some of the "fine art" photos I've seen for sale for five figures in glitzy tourist galleries. At one point, I had wholesale price lists of mass-produced posters that were selling for thousands a dollars apiece in galleries in places like the SF waterfront. In many cases, they weren't worth anywhere near as much as the frame they were put in, maybe only ten to fifteen bucks wholesale. But suckers would get talked into "investing" in such trash. Reminds me of my cats. The smallest cat bluffs and fluffs and yowls the best, so can chase off a tomcat four times her size.

The problem is in essence financial. I may have impeccable taste, but if I only have £200 to back up my taste, that figure will put much of the work I like outside my budget. There may, indeed certainly will be work I can afford, especially if I look around student shows, but for an original print by a named photographer I'd need to increase my spending power by a factor of 10.

Of course I may not have impeccable taste, I may be jaded by seeing the 50th shot of El Capitan by A. Nother with a large format camera, or a Karsh-alike portrait and seek the next big hit of navel fluff taken on an endoscope, but that's taste for you. It's frequently the case that people with money have no taste, and require an arbiter to inform them what current taste consists of. Depending on their social aspirations it could be a beautiful portrait of an exquisite young woman or an edgy one of an autopsied head in a rose bowl. I don't buy a fool and his money are soon parted as an exclusively artistic phenomenon, I'd say art stands up pretty well against other investments and for some good reasons and some less good ones. If An Acknowledged Collector says an unmade bed is worth £50000, it's unlikely it will ever be worth less, and the odds are it will probably be worth a great deal more when he chooses to sell it. Who's the sucker there?

So who gets to decide? Who says photograph A is worth ten grand and photograph B is worth ten pence? In the pecking order of agreed greatness, skill and technique fall pretty low on the scale, as I've been at pains to point out. Concept, artistic vision, a certain chutzpah, persistence and a catalogue of esteemed buyers rank much higher than whether palladium and a wood and brass 10 x 8 camera were employed in its making. Of course neither of those things exclude an image attracting such buyers, but they can be a dead end that leaves the photographer wondering "why not me?" when he fills in his tax returns.

Footnote: One of the more interesting developments in photography in recent years has been a wider appreciation of the photographic book. These are often beautifully designed, have more effort expended in their presentation than many gallery shows and can be had for £30 to £80. I'm an avid photo book buyer, and I doubt a single one is worth less than I paid for it, and some are worth many times more. Photo books are a way photographer and buyer can exercise their taste and vision without needing the mediation of a curator.

 

[blockend]

FWIW, I am represented by a 'serious' and internationally known art gallery...so I do not think there is a language or vocabulary problem.

I never look at peoples' work when commenting on a thread (even when invited to), nor do I submit my work to scrutiny to back up my points. Both are appeals to authority, and if what I say doesn't add up, showing a photograph won't add anything to the discussion, and will probably divert it down technical alleys that have nothing to do with the main point.

 

[wudyng]

people who use camera as tool to express other art form.

 

[mdarnton]

I never look at peoples' work when commenting on a thread (even when invited to), nor do I submit my work to scrutiny to back up my points. Both are appeals to authority, and if what I say doesn't add up, showing a photograph won't add anything to the discussion, and will probably divert it down technical alleys that have nothing to do with the main point.

I think you may misunderstand the appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[blockend]

I'm not sure why you'd think that. An appeal to authority is the citation of any "authority" figure as a way of avoiding further discussion on the merits of an argument. In this case saying an internationally renowned gallery deals with ones work, especially in the context of an internet discussion, is the equivalent of saying "my argument wins". It may do, but it can lead to an argument in which different subjective criteria are at play in evaluating the merit of a piece, mixed with a desire to showcase ones work and gain approval.

By not looking at someone's work as support for their opinions, we avoid debates over whether tintypes "beat" Polaroids, and a fine silver print from a Deardorff is objectively "better" than a glicee print from a digital P&S, as well as giving offence over the quality of someone's work rather than the quality of their point.