So the "What is the difference between art and fine art" question is a self eating watermelon?
The subject is never settled. Participants in the thread just wear themselves out discussing it and take time off to recharge their batteries so they can have another go at it later. What is interesting is that none of the participants use the time off to read about the issue so they will be able to offer more informed opinions. They just drag the dead horse out of the barn and beat is some more. The horse is dead so he is not really in a position to object.
I had never heard that idiom, so I looked it up. It appears in the urban dictionary, so that explains why I had never heard of it. I have never heard most of the stuff that appears in the urban dictionary. Fortunately.So the "What is the difference between art and fine art" question is a self eating watermelon?
I had never heard that idiom, so I looked it up. It appears in the urban dictionary, so that explains why I had never heard of it. I have never heard most of the stuff that appears in the urban dictionary. Fortunately.
I had never heard that idiom, so I looked it up. It appears in the urban dictionary, so that explains why I had never heard of it. I have never heard most of the stuff that appears in the urban dictionary. Fortunately.
Yet, amazingly enough, we all have benefited greatly from the work of those who seem to be thought of as being full of it.Probably already stated:
BS= well...BS
MS= More of Same
PhD= Piled Higher and Deeper
I'm just having a bit of fun. After all, I do have a BA (Bullshit Artist) in English Literature. It's kind of like calling a Ferrari a PCD (Penis Compensation Device), because, well, you too aspire to compensate for yours that way some day. The only really frustrating thing about getting a terminal degree in fine art is that it is required if you want to teach in a formal institution that can afford to pay you a salary and provide benefits, but it is in no way required to actually produce art at an advanced level (or any level).BFA up here stands for Bachelor of F All... but hey, that degree opened the door to an education degree, which led to teaching art and photography. So, it wasn't a waste of time after all.
I'm just having a bit of fun. After all, I do have a BA (Bullshit Artist) in English Literature. It's kind of like calling a Ferrari a PCD (Penis Compensation Device), because, well, you too aspire to compensate for yours that way some day. The only really frustrating thing about getting a terminal degree in fine art is that it is required if you want to teach in a formal institution that can afford to pay you a salary and provide benefits, but it is in no way required to actually produce art at an advanced level (or any level).
One of my art teachers in school told the class, "pick another career, don't become an artist unless you absolutely have to, you can't do anything else."No, you're absolutely correct. I tell many of my students who love making art, that they can still make it, even after they become a doctor, etc. A former student of mine wanted to go to art school right after graduating from high school. Her parents threatened to cut her off if she did. They wanted her to go into medicine or business (that school has a very high Asian population, who's parents don't value art as a career). In the end she became an accountant, making loads of money. She's still making art, and selling it online.
I heard that refrain throughout grad school, and mostly my professors were right. But what the colleges don't tell us (because it might affect their profitability) is the fact that college is not the most important thing you'll ever do, and many people end up doing something in their careers that is unrelated to their major in college. I found that my degrees in the arts had encouraged creative thinking and curiosity and given me many portable skills that I have used in ways I never intended.One of my art teachers in school told the class, "pick another career, don't become an artist unless you absolutely have to, you can't do anything else."
Would help if you could link a source where "fine art" is defined so nothing is left to interpretation. Or, I could tell you where you can find it: nowhere. But the subject often makes for a worthy discussion. The horse never showed up, just so he can never be beaten to death.The subject is never settled. Participants in the thread just wear themselves out discussing it and take time off to recharge their batteries so they can have another go at it later. What is interesting is that none of the participants use the time off to read about the issue so they will be able to offer more informed opinions. They just drag the dead horse out of the barn and beat it some more. The horse is dead so he is not really in a position to object.
Does it mean then, that any know nothing beginer once he/she can take recognisable pictures of people, landscapes, and artifacts can refer to themselves as " Artists" ?, as many of them do.Let's summarize: fine art is equivalent to art which is something made by an artist who is someone who identifies him or herself as an artist, where an artist is someone who makes art. In other words, fine art is the product of someone who says they're making fine art.
Incidentally, red is red. A horse is an animal people call a horse. And money can be exchanged for money.
Let's summarize: fine art is equivalent to art which is something made by an artist who is someone who identifies him or herself as an artist, where an artist is someone who makes art. In other words, fine art is the product of someone who says they're making fine art.
Incidentally, red is red. A horse is an animal people call a horse. And money can be exchanged for money.
Does it mean then, that any know nothing beginer once he/she can take recognisable pictures of people, landscapes, and artifacts can refer to themselves as " Artists" ?, as many of them do.
Fine art does not have to be fine, it can be coarse. And nothing needs to be recognizable. And something that is recognizable can be denied being what it is recognized to be.
Artists are people who call themselves artists. Some artists refuse to be called artists, too. That is part of their image as artists.
All that is necessary for something to be fine art is for someone to call or label it as such.
So if I were to acquire one of your photographs, it would no longer be fine art, right?Clarified: If it is my photograph it is fine art; if it is yours, not so much.
So if I were to acquire one of your photographs, it would no longer be fine art, right?
Basically, that is how I see it, although it could just be art and not fine art. The two (art and fine art) are one in the same, but one needs the 'fine' to get out of being asked to photograph weddings, and an art photographer can just be someone who photographs art...Let's summarize: fine art is equivalent to art which is something made by an artist who is someone who identifies him or herself as an artist, where an artist is someone who makes art. In other words, fine art is the product of someone who says they're making fine art.
Incidentally, red is red. A horse is an animal people call a horse. And money can be exchanged for money.
+11Partially correct. So called “fine” art is almost always something made by a person who identifies him or herself as an artist, but who is not a very good one. When someone describes his or her own stuff as fine art, alarm bells.
And in the end it all remains relative. What is fine for one, may be meh for another. Never met a soldier calling their combat packaged meals as any good. They end up eating a fine soup at a restaurant quite frequently. The same soup I would not want to repeat at all. (Speaking from direct experience)I am almost 70 and after I retired about 9-1/2 years ago I decided to challenge myself with something completely different (I was a technology teacher in a high school.). I am now just one credit away from a BFA. That credit is for my capstone/senior show, which I will do next April. After all this study I do not have a definitive answer for what is fine art. I guess I know it when I see it.
Clarified: If it is my photograph it is fine art ...
In general I think I agree with all or most of that. Yet, You may be referring to something entirely and oddly different, but the moment I see fine art in any discussion, it immediately draws my "fond" memories of "Joe Doe Fine Art Wedding Photography" or "Jack Repulsive Fine Art Landscape Photography" and the list goes on. Total all-the-same crap that will have a ton of telltales what some apparently need to apply the fine term. In the end fine has no meaning, except it sounds cool to some and implies an accomplished mastering of a medium. A fine one is better than one without that fine in the title.There seems to be a desire to have an "elevated" or almost mystical vague idea of what art is, that it is special and rare, when the fact is art is common. People get confused because they think art has to be in some way "good" or "inspired" or "original" or "evocative" - when those are all descriptors that either may or may not apply to a particular piece of art. Some are is great, some art is total crap. Some art is well done, some is poorly executed. People don't get confused about music - they feel free to say "that music is crap" or "that music is great" and still understand that it is music. Art, in general, is the same way.
And, like I said before (300 posts ago or so), "fine" art is to be contrasted with "vulgar" art, where a vulgar (common) art is something executed for a purpose or end, and "fine" art does not need any purpose. It is made with the idea that its existence is worthwhile in itself, that it is something to be experienced to the exclusion of everything else.
That can easily lead you to the notion of the "sublime", which was the ultimate art-experience coming out of medieval philosophy (almost always having to do with religious "uplifting"). The "sublime" is a concept that really pushes a rarefied notion of art (artistic/religious epiphany) and should be left in mouldering old books where it belongs.
"Fine" art is a valueless description. It is not really as a purposive object that art is ever appreciated as specifically art, so the limiting notion of a "fine" art adds nothing. That's why you can remove an object from its function and recontextualize it as an art piece. (Picasso's bicycle seat bull, for example - which is not art because it is a bicycle seat and handlebars but because of the reconfiguration of those objects into a sculpture.)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?