What is "Fine Art"?

[KenS]

After more than about 65 years under the dark-cloth, and 25+ years making photographs for scientists in Agriculture Canada's Research Branch, my daughter challenged me 'do' (ie 'earn) my BFA at the nearby University. The questions posed during that 'experience' that were most difficult to answer was (usually) "What does that image 'mean'? I would let about 30 seconds 'pass' and ask the prof "What do YOU see in that image. There was 'usually' some 45 seconds (or so of silence (and no 'physical movement by my fellow class-mates) and I would inquired "what do YOU see?.. Might you have chosen a different 'position' or 'framing"
The replies were usually absent (and followed by 'more 'silence') and we were then 'pressed on' to view the next student's 'presentation'

Ken

 

[Vaughn]

Only a fine artist can produce fine art. To become a fine artist you go to a college, pay them lots of money, take a variety of classes, graduate with a fine art degree, and begin a life of poverty as you attempt to sell your fine art to people who either can't appreciate it or can't afford it or both. When you die, your fine art finally sells.

Another way is to have a BS degree, but work as a tech for an Art Dept for a couple decades. I found that an interesting and closely related day-job was a cool way to work, then retire, while practicing my art. And in the course of weaving in a marriage, the raising of triplets, and other such life matters, the production of art may vary, but it's always there.

Art is communication. I am not going to please everyone, reach everyone. But I can try anyway.

 

[jnamia]

"fine art" is an expression invented in the 1700s when museums were invented. in the late 20th and in the 21st century it seems to have been co-opted by people who want to elevate their status (or their client's status) by saying they make "fine art" or they are a "fine artist" .. I've been around people that I would imagine are fine artists, they are unbelievably creative and make things that are equally inconceivably amazing for years but they scoff at that title and think people who use it are kind of pompous... I guess it's like everything else, people who are it, don't want it, and people who don't do ..

 

[Vaughn]

Nah...for most of us, I think, "fine" is just a category of art (and a very broad one), not an indicator of any extra excellence and/or value.

If an artist scoffs at the title, me thinks the scoffing may be a bit pompous perhaps...

 

[VinceInMT]

Wow! Maybe I should move to MT.

Bring a snow shovel. We had 14 inches last week.

 

[VinceInMT]

The replies were usually absent (and followed by 'more 'silence') and we were then 'pressed on' to view the next student's 'presentation'

Ken

That has certainly not been my recent experience. During critiques there is a steady stream of comments from both the students and the professors about all aspects of the work., the work itself and what meaning the artist may have intended. Every work is accompanied by an artist statement and we analyze how well the statement aligns with the work. We are not a silent bunch here when it comes to art. And, a critique usually covers 3-4 pieces of work from 4-5 students and takes several hours. It’s great way to get feedback.

 

[faberryman]

That has certainly not been my recent experience. During critiques there is a steady stream of comments from both the students and the professors about all aspects of the work., the work itself and what meaning the artist may have intended. Every work is accompanied by an artist statement and we analyze how well the statement aligns with the work. We are not a silent bunch here when it comes to art. And, a critique usually covers 3-4 pieces of work from 4-5 students and takes several hours. It’s great way to get feedback.

I am not sure when photography got off track and now we have to talk about what a photograph means. Probably about the time Stieglitz at al. begin pushing photography as art. The less said about his photographs of clouds the better. The result is that now you show someone a photograph you took of a clown on stilts down at the park and they have to ask you what it means, and you have to explain to them that it means you took a picture of a clown on stilts down at the park and you were just thinking about how someone else might like to see a photograph of a clown on stilts down at the park. The real problem arises when you take about twenty photos of the clown and his carnival friends down at the park for a photography class, and you have to write up an artist statement, and now you have to make up all sorts of preposterous nonsense in an effort to imbue what would otherwise be a perfectly nice series of photographs of a clown and his carnival friends down at the park with some sort of deep meaning. That's when you realize that to be successful as a photographer you are going to need to go to graduate school and get a master's degree in how to write all sorts of preposterous nonsense, because, as best as I can tell, they don't teach you anything about making photographs in graduate school.

Anyway, for my first artist statement, I submitted this to my instructor for comment:

If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you’ll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don’t feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth. In the first place, that stuff bores me, and in the second place, my parents would have two hemorrhages apiece if I told anything pretty personal about them. Besides, I’m not going to tell you my whole goddamn autobiography or anything. Let's just say I take pictures of stuff.

Turns out she had read The Catcher in the Rye so she didn't let me use use it, and I had to make up all sorts of preposterous nonsense which I am so embarrassed about there is no way I am going to let anyone see it.

 

[VinceInMT]

I am not sure when photography got off track and now we have to talk about what a photograph means. Probably about the time Stieglitz at al. begin pushing photography as art.

I’ll venture an answer. I believe it can be found in the evolution of art periods over time. Renaissance, baroque, Rococo, Romanticism, Modernism, and, since WWII, the development of Contemporary art. It is the Modern and, more so, the Contemporary that moved art to include not just what the image or object was, but also what meaning can be derived from it. Yes, some artist statements are after-the-fact balderdash and seemed to be written with heavy reliance on a thesaurus, but, done right, provide some insight into the intent of the artist. For example, the large works of Richard Serra may just seem like big slabs of steel but there is an intent behind them that is worth exploring.

When it comes down to it, some art, especially some Modern and most Contemporay art, lacks the immediate accessibly found in art produced in, or emulating, the styles of earlier periods, and requires more of the viewer. I find this akin to some forms of music, such as some classical and, particularly, many forms of jazz. That I don’t “get it” doesn’t reflect on the artist as much as it does on me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I never took the BFA path. I never had to write an artist's statement nor ever had to write anything explaining my photographs. My photographs were put on display sometimes with the location and date and people were on their own to interpret them as they wished. I can say that I never missed the opportunity to write artist's statement or any of those other statements. People either liked or disliked the photographs and that was just fine for me.

 

[jnamia]

they don't teach you anything about making photographs in graduate school.

I think it depends where you go and what you study. I finished a MFA program recently and besides honing my writing skills and learning photographic history, analysis, curating and presentation there were classes where people learned photographic technique, mostly alternative process type work, using camera-made and digital negatives to make prints using arcane and modern photographic processes. you learned both through being taught by an instructor and you were taught through critique sessions where your the instructors and your peers asked probing questions about what you were doing and why and how it fit into your project / thesis ...

I am not sure when photography got off track and now we have to talk about what a photograph means. Probably about the time Stieglitz at al. begin pushing photography as art.

I think it has never gone off track. there have always been people hell-bent on being technical perfectionists, and others who wanted to do something else with the photographic process, whether it was making daguerreotypes or salt prints or cyanotypes or nowadays using the digital or a hybrid / mixed media approach. There have always been people who wanted to know what, how and why things were done, and "read" meaning into the images made. "Art" changed in the 1800s, from things that looked like the dutch masters or Leonardo or Michelangelo made them to what challenged the artistic culture of the day, including women going to art schools ( which were a new thing otherwise art was taught in an apprenticeship type program ) Some of the people making photographs changed with the times and others stayed doing their thing, making technically perfect pictures. not much has changed now in 2022.

 

[Vaughn]

Before "Fine Art" it was mostly religious art -- very rich in symbolism and meaning. The very essence of western art has always been the expression of meaning.

 

[faberryman]

That I don’t “get it” doesn’t reflect on the artist as much as it does on me.

Sometimes I wonder what the effect would be on viewers if you prepared several disparate artist statements and swapped them out over the course of your gallery show. Would anyone think that the artist statement they read didn't really match up to the images, or would they think that since they don't get it that reflected more on them than on the artist. On whom should a failure to communicate fall. I'd say sometimes it falls on the artist and sometimes it falls on the viewer, and sometimes it falls on both to a greater or lesser extent. The default should not be that if the viewer doesn't get it he is a dolt. Is that how we have been conditioned, and, if so, why?

 

[MattKing]

Sometimes I wonder what the effect would be on viewers if you prepared several disparate artist statements and swapped them out over the course of your gallery show. Would anyone think that the artist statement they read didn't really match up to the images, or would they think that since they don't get it that reflected more on them than on the artist. On whom should a failure to communicate fall. I'd say sometimes it falls on the artist and sometimes it falls on the viewer, and sometimes it falls on both to a greater or lesser extent. The default should not be that if the viewer doesn't get it he is a dolt. Is that how we have been conditioned, and, if so, why?

I gave a print of the attached photo - titled "Hallelujah" - to friends of mine who apparently like my photos (they have a few on their walls). This particular photo had some additional significance for them, because it was taken in the park where they held their wedding, and it was taken the same year as their wedding.
I've included it in a group show, and I prepared an artist's statement for that show.
When I display the photo, it is shown in this landscape orientation.
They have it displayed vertically, because that is how they prefer it.
What they get from the photo may differ from what my artist statement says. The difference in orientation and difference in what the photo means to them are both fine with me. My artist statements are suggestions and supply some context. Viewers of my photographs are welcome to discover whatever they can in what I show them.

 

[faberryman]

I think it depends where you go and what you study.

I guess I should say that I was sort of exaggerating for emphasis.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sometimes I wonder what the effect would be on viewers if you prepared several disparate artist statements and swapped them out over the course of your gallery show. Would anyone think that the artist statement they read didn't really match up to the images, or would they think that since they don't get it that reflected more on them than on the artist. On whom should a failure to communicate fall. I'd say sometimes it falls on the artist and sometimes it falls on the viewer, and sometimes it falls on both to a greater or lesser extent. The default should not be that if the viewer doesn't get it he is a dolt. Is that how we have been conditioned, and, if so, why?

On occasion, I read the tags-labels for posted photographs or art. Sometimes they can be useful.

 

[faberryman]

On occasion, I read the tags-labels for posted photographs or art. Sometimes they can be useful.

I am wondering when artist statements became de rigueur for photography exhibits. Surely, it wasn't always thus. The first photography exhibit I saw was in 1975, and it was of images by Brett Weston. It is entirely possible that my memory is impaired, but I think the statement in the brochure and on the placard adjacent to the first photograph just gave some biographic information and said when and where the photographs were taken. I don't think there was any explanation of what, if anything, the photographs were suppose to mean. Viewing the exhibit was purely an aesthetic experience, although, because the prints were absolutely stunning, it did suggest to me that perhaps I needed to work on my darkroom technique.

 

[Arthurwg]

Feberryman

My guess is that the guy taking pictures of a clown was not an artist. That's important. Not everyone is an artist.

 

[faberryman]

Feberryman

My guess is that the guy taking pictures of a clown was not an artist. That's important. Not everyone is an artist.

Why do you say that?

 

[VinceInMT]

I think it depends where you go and what you study. I finished a MFA program recently and besides honing my writing skills and learning photographic history, analysis, curating and presentation there were classes where people learned photographic technique, mostly alternative process type work, using camera-made and digital negatives to make prints using arcane and modern photographic processes. you learned both through being taught by an instructor and you were taught through critique sessions where your the instructors and your peers asked probing questions about what you were doing and why and how it fit into your project / thesis ...

All very well-stated and reflects my experience.

 

[VinceInMT]

Sometimes I wonder what the effect would be on viewers if you prepared several disparate artist statements and swapped them out over the course of your gallery show. Would anyone think that the artist statement they read didn't really match up to the images, or would they think that since they don't get it that reflected more on them than on the artist. On whom should a failure to communicate fall. I'd say sometimes it falls on the artist and sometimes it falls on the viewer, and sometimes it falls on both to a greater or lesser extent. The default should not be that if the viewer doesn't get it he is a dolt. Is that how we have been conditioned, and, if so, why?

I listen to a great podcast about art history called “The Lonely Palette.“ It opens every episode with random people in a museum commenting of the specific piece of art that episode will discuss. The range of responses is wonderful and reflects how we bring our personal background and vision into what we view and evaluate.

And I hope that I didn’t infer that viewer who doesn’t “get it” is a “dolt.” I specifically pointed to myself when I made the reference. And, yes, sometimes I am a dolt. Even with an artist statement that clearly explains what the work is about, I still don’t “get it.” Sometimes it’s because of a cultural divide or an age-related one, the latter coming up quite frequently of late. In the classes I’ve been taking I do quite well in ”getting it” except when a work or a statement has references to popular culture, especially television, which I haven’t watched in decades.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am wondering when artist statements became de rigueur for photography exhibits. Surely, it wasn't always thus. The first photography exhibit I saw was in 1975, and it was of images by Brett Weston. It is entirely possible that my memory is impaired, but I think the statement in the brochure and on the placard adjacent to the first photograph just gave some biographic information and said when and where they were taken. I don't think there was any explanation of what, if anything, the photographs were suppose to mean. Viewing the exhibit was purely an aesthetic experience, although, because the prints were absolutely stunning, it did suggest to me that perhaps I needed to work on my photographic technique.

I tend to read the comments when:

• I am interested in the location of the photograph
• I am interested in the approximate date of the photograph
• I am having trouble figuring out what I am looking at.

 

[VinceInMT]

Viewers of my photographs are welcome to discover whatever they can in what I show them.

Certainly, “viewer completion” is an important part of many works.

Regarding the orientation for display, I had one of my photographs displayed in our school gallery a few years ago. It was from a series I did photographing shadows on concrete. I had installed the piece myself and due to some maintenance being done, it was removed and then reinstalled, up side down. When I saw it, even though I’d selected the original orientation with much intentionality, I actually liked it better.

 

[Arthurwg]

Why do you say that?

From your description it seems like the clown photos are just that, ordinary records of a clown on stilts. I see no "idea" there that would distinguish those pictures from any other clown pictures. True, their maybe craft, but craft is not art by my understanding, and is not even necessary. Let's talk about an artist that used photography like Lewis Baltz. His use of craft was minimal, but he is widely recognized as a fine artist. It's all about the idea.

I also don't believe in the popular maxim that everybody is an artist, or that everybody COULD be an artist. Actual artists are few and far between.

 

[faberryman]

When I display the photo, it is shown in this landscape orientation. They have it displayed vertically, because that is how they prefer it.

Here's a tip: when you cut your mat, have the bottom margin be larger than the top and side margins. That's helps me when I am showing abstract photos because sometimes I forget which way they go.

 

[faberryman]

From your description it seems like the clown photos are just that, ordinary records of a clown on stilts. I see no "idea" there that would distinguish those pictures from any other clown pictures. True, their maybe craft, but craft is not art by my understanding, and is not even necessary. Let's talk about an artist that used photography like Lewis Baltz. His use of craft was minimal, but he is widely recognized as a fine artist. It's all about the idea.

I also don't believe in the popular maxim that everybody is an artist, or that everybody COULD be an artist. Actual artists are few and far between.

If I showed you a photograph of a clown on stilts, how would you know if the photograph was an ordinary record of a clown on stilts or "art"? Why would you ask me what it means?