What is "Fine Art"?

[Auer]

My wife says I'm fine art. Or was it old fart. Something like that.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Over time I have learned that "Fine Art" is a bit like "Classical Music", basically a niche group that uses the accumulated knowledge of the past to judge the current versions of that style of music. It has no bearing on Rock and Roll, Big Band, Rap or Country etc.

So to, photographic fine art. One can compare the work of modern photographers to those of the past but it is only relevant if the photographer was seeking to capturing that style of photography.

Today, we are inundated by an explosion of visual information. Hence, for most folks any photo stands of falls on it own merit. Fine art has to do with like or not-like with little to do with the past.

 

[Pieter12]

Over time I have learned that "Fine Art" is a bit like "Classical Music", basically a niche group that uses the accumulated knowledge of the past to judge the current versions of that style of music. It has no bearing on Rock and Roll, Big Band, Rap or Country etc.

So to, photographic fine art. One can compare the work of modern photographers to those of the past but it is only relevant if the photographer was seeking to capturing that style of photography.

Today, we are inundated by an explosion of visual information. Hence, for most folks any photo stands of falls on it own merit. Fine art has to do with like or not-like with little to do with the past.

I'm not sure the music comparison is valid. There is avant-garde "classical" music as there is baroque. There is opera, and other vocal music. And there is sound art--which may or may not be classified as "classical" is usually is considered art. And of course jazz has many variations as well. Photography is visual, and although there are genres that might fall under the "popular" classification like pin-ups and celebrity photos, for example there is no documentary or social documentary equivalent in music, while those styles have been accepted as art in the curatorial and gallery world.

 

[Don_ih]

"Fine" arts are those arts which are not the "Vulgar" arts (i.e., crafts). Vulgar arts serve a functional purpose; fine arts do not need one.

That's two cents worth.

 

[Pieter12]

"Fine" arts are those arts which are not the "Vulgar" arts (i.e., crafts). Vulgar arts serve a functional purpose; fine arts do not need one.

That's two cents worth.

Some "fine art" does serve a purpose, such as religious and historicall paintings, portraits that were sent as introductions, etc. And decoration is a functional purpose, too. Not to mention propaganda (the religious painting would fall under that category, too) and political paintings (think monarchs).

 

[Don_ih]

Some "fine art" does serve a purpose, such as religious and historicall paintings, portraits that were sent as introductions, etc. And decoration is a functional purpose, too. Not to mention propaganda (the religious painting would fall under that category, too) and political paintings (think monarchs).

I said fine arts do not need a functional purpose - that doesn't mean they can't have one. You can use photos for political purposes, you can use a photo to line a bird cage, you can use a photo to start a fire - none of those depend on its identity as a fine art object. The functional purpose can be part of its identity - lots of journalistic photos are definitely tied to their historic context - but it doesn't have to be.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Fine art is something that people argue about.

 

[Don_ih]

Fine art is something that people argue about.

But is there anything people don't argue about?

 

[markjwyatt]

Fine art is something that people argue about.

Kind of like, "photography"?

 

[Sirius Glass]

But is there anything people don't argue about?

The great photographs I take.

 

[Pieter12]

The great photographs I take.

Not worth arguing about?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not worth arguing about?

No, they are so damned good.

 

[Don_ih]

The great photographs I take.

I didn't realize you took photos --- but, then, I don't know who you are

 

[markjwyatt]

But is there anything people don't argue about?

I would argue there is...

I didn't realize you took photos --- but, then, I don't know who you are

I don't think he is Sirius.

 

[Pieter12]

 

[markjwyatt]

I don't know why ( ) but this video keeps popping up on threads here.

 

[Arthurwg]

I'll say it again: Art is the idea coupled with a sensibility. The quality of both makes it "fine," or not.

 

[Don_ih]

I'll say it again: Art is the idea coupled with a sensibility. The quality of both makes it "fine," or not.

That's a bit effervescent.

Art is a product of a particular kind of human activity. That product can be experienced by others. The kinds of products that we call "art" vary, but they all have one thing in common: they are the realization of an idea through a medium. When you experience art, you experience the end object of artistic activity - not the activity itself, not the artist. Even art such as dance, which has its reality in human movement, gets its realization in direction of that movement - which is not the movement or the dancer but a set of instructions, the execution of which is nuanced and requires skill but doesn't preclude the possibility of someone else repeating it. (In other words, you are not making art by duplicating the art already made by someone else.)

 

[removed account4]

The great photographs I take.

we'd LOVE to see them because you've been talking about them for years and years. and years and years and

 

[guangong]

A photograph becomes fine art if the photographer was able to get a grant that allows the photographer to pursue his hobby at tax payers expense.

 

[Arthurwg]

That's a bit effervescent.

Art is a product of a particular kind of human activity. That product can be experienced by others. The kinds of products that we call "art" vary, but they all have one thing in common: they are the realization of an idea through a medium. When you experience art, you experience the end object of artistic activity - not the activity itself, not the artist. Even art such as dance, which has its reality in human movement, gets its realization in direction of that movement - which is not the movement or the dancer but a set of instructions, the execution of which is nuanced and requires skill but doesn't preclude the possibility of someone else repeating it. (In other words, you are not making art by duplicating the art already made by someone else.)

That's a bit....dull.
I'll stick with my definition.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Over time I have learned that "Fine Art" is a bit like "Classical Music", basically a niche group that uses the accumulated knowledge of the past to judge the current versions of that style of music. It has no bearing on Rock and Roll, Big Band, Rap or Country etc.

So to, photographic fine art. One can compare the work of modern photographers to those of the past but it is only relevant if the photographer was seeking to capturing that style of photography.

Today, we are inundated by an explosion of visual information. Hence, for most folks any photo stands of falls on it own merit. Fine art has to do with like or not-like with little to do with the past.

I belong to a photo club made up of seniors. There are a few other clubs in my area. We compete with each other in annual intra-club photo contests.

What I noticed is that due to what the judges are looking for, the photos tend to be all similar as each person tries to figure out what the judges will grade higher. One year, it just so happened a lot of submitted photos were of shots of parts of old automobiles. The judge was a woman who hated car photos and told everyone during the contest. In the next year's contest, there were no car photos entered.

Things like the rule of thirds and the technical things we talk about are heavily weighted by the judges. So photographers respond to these things and creativity suffers.

 

[Pieter12]

A photograph becomes fine art if the photographer was able to get a grant that allows the photographer to pursue his hobby at tax payers expense.

Well, public sector funding of the arts is on a decline. There are many private grants--the Guggenheim is a well-known example. Once a photographer accepts a grant, it is no longer a hobby and grant money is taxable.

 

[Don_ih]

That's a bit....dull.
I'll stick with my definition.

Dull, yes, but such things tend to be less than exciting.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I belong to a photo club made up of seniors. There are a few other clubs in my area. We compete with each other in annual intra-club photo contests.

What I noticed is that due to what the judges are looking for, the photos tend to be all similar as each person tries to figure out what the judges will grade higher. One year, it just so happened a lot of submitted photos were of shots of parts of old automobiles. The judge was a woman who hated car photos and told everyone during the contest. In the next year's contest, there were no car photos entered.

Things like the rule of thirds and the technical things we talk about are heavily weighted by the judges. So photographers respond to these things and creativity suffers.

I too saw people in photo clubs gaming the system to win rather than work on composing better photographs, so I stopped going to camera clubs.