What is "Fine Art"?

[Don_ih]

I rather detest the work of Andy Warhol and Jean-Michel Basquiat, for example, which in both cases are close to garbage IMHO. What makes them "fine artists"

They were engaged in making art, for the most part, not ancillary to any other product (i.e., not adorning a useful box or furniture, etc.).

 

[DREW WILEY]

That's easy to answer, Arthur - both of them endorsed each other's work. Birds of a feather. I wouldn't have anything against Basqujat if they'd simply take out of his estate the funds commensurate to sandblast and repaint over every single thing he did on public and private property without permission. Vandalism, whether art-worthy or not, is still vandalism. But art entered the Dark Ages anyway once Warhol showed up.

 

[Pieter12]

That's easy to answer, Arthur - both of them endorsed each other's work. Birds of a feather. I wouldn't have anything against Basqujat if they'd simply take out of his estate the funds commensurate to sandblast and repaint over every single thing he did on public and private property without permission. Vandalism, whether art-worthy or not, is still vandalism. But art entered the Dark Ages anyway once Warhol showed up.

Let's do the same in those silly caves. No one granted permission to those neanderthals. My kid (goat) could do better.

 

[Pieter12]

Regarding the “label” that appears next to a displayed piece of art, (and I acknowledge that even the use of “label” is controversial) I mentioned earlier here or on another thread that I find it curious that with photography it is not uncommon to see technical data such an camera model, lens, type of film, exposure data, paper used, etc., even seen on the Gallery on this site. Why is that? With other media it might note “oil on canvas” or “ink on paper” but the brand of oil, the type of brushes used, and that type of thing is generally not included.

I have never been in a physical gallery or museum where anything more than the process and materials are listed.

 

[Pieter12]

All this discussing of "fine art" and artist's statements, galleries and museums leads me to ask, how many forum members regularly go to galleries, museums, artists' studios? How many produce fine art, have published and sold books, have had gallery shows, are in museum collections, have sold to collectors? How many buy art? Or maybe it is all just a bunch of bullshit.

 

[MattKing]

All this discussing of "fine art" and artist's statements, galleries and museums leads me to ask, how many forum members regularly go to galleries, museums, artists' studios? How many produce fine art, have published and sold books, have had gallery shows, are in museum collections, have sold to collectors? How many buy art? Or maybe it is all just a bunch of bullshit.

I go to galleries, museums, artists' studios - sometimes more frequently than others.
I've had photography in galleries and public space group shows that I also contributed toward the organization of.
My wife and I have bought inexpensive art from places like community markets.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Those weren't Neanderthals, Pieter. Neanderthals were known to have some personal ornaments and likely used charcoal and red ochre colorants, but were never suspected of mural work.

As far as attending museums, well, I collaborated with some excellent ones in terms of technical issues and needed equipment over several decades, and sometimes went to shows. Had a few of my own gigs of course. But I'm sure not going to waste any time seeing yet another fourth million Warhol of Avedon or Cindy Sherman print. Time for a change of scenery. Taint "modern" art anymore - just another very stale old regime due to be stored away in the closet.

 

[Pieter12]

I collaborated with some excellent ones in terms of technical issues and needed equipment over several decades, and sometimes went to shows. Had a few of my own gigs of course. But I'm sure not going to waste any time seeing yet another fourth million Warhol of Avedon or Cindy Sherman print.

It does not sound like you've been to many shows, but you're not clear about it. And if you haven't been to many shows how could you possibly have seen so many Warchols or Shermans, except in print or online, and we all know that is nowhere near the same as seeing an original. I also have friends who are very set in their tastes (not denying them that) who won't go to see certain genres or artists. It is a shame to wall yourself off from something, even if you don't like or understand it. There is a lot of crap out there passing as art, but sometimes there can be something to it that merits attention--even if that attention is disdain.

I go to galleries, museums, artists' studios - sometimes more frequently than others.
I've had photography in galleries and public space group shows that I also contributed toward the organization of.
My wife and I have bought inexpensive art from places like community markets.

Kudos to you. I know people who call themselves photographers today who have rarely set foot in a gallery or museum to see an original. I have bought photos and original art, sometimes stretching the budget in order to acquire it, as well as trading design and photography services for art.

 

[MattKing]

I also have an extensive collection of APUG and Photrio exchange postcards, plus several prints exchanged through other print exchanges.
Interacting with other photographers and their prints is pretty “Fine” as far as I am concerned!

 

[jnamia]

But they don't - they actually travel to the place itself.

exactly, they've already seen the ML, everyone has, and it probably looked better on the web. the fact that they were there is what mattered, they WERE the moment and shared it with friends and family, it's bizarre people don't realize that. I've been there and seen it, well from 10 feet, like everyone else, they were doing the photos infront of the masterpieces. I couldn't do what a photographer would do with a loupe and inspect the grain and I wasn't really impressed, I was more impressed that NappyB had it in his bathroom, what a "punk". ... I wasn't impressed by works by Ansel Adams and Edward Weston and maybe 20-30 other heavy hitters whose work I saw in person on the bottom floor of a museums either, they were barely lame, the lighting was bad and the images weren't very impressive, always better on the internet, its not surprising, cause if they wanted them to look good they'd have asked Sherrie L to print them. LOL . I should have taken a selfie to prove I wasted the 29 dollars to see that stuff, but my phone didn't have a camera, friends didn't believe I wasted the money.
--
I just got back after driving 4 hours to a photography and film exhibit. interesting photography, and 2 films. it was great to get out and see fine art photography in the flesh and socialize with people who give a crap and read the artist statements ( a catalog too ). so much more fun seeing stuff that has an edge, printed in the darkroom, off of files, artist books, than reading posts, makes you think of all sorts of stuff. some had a statement some didn't, I didn't care.. the images were great.

I hope the people who have been arguing their points for this post this past week get a chance to actually go out and see some photography or art or at least go in their dark (or light) room and make some photographs they would be happy to call "fine art". nothing's worse than people that spend all their time talking the talk so much they have no time to walk the walk...

 

[Don_ih]

I know people who call themselves photographers today who have rarely set foot in a gallery or museum to see an original. I have bought photos and original art, sometimes stretching the budget in order to acquire it, as well as trading design and photography services for art.

Going to galleries and museums doesn't make someone an artist and not going to those places doesn't prevent someone from being one. Galleries and museums display art, they don't make it.

Yes, you can learn from those places. But you can learn just as much elsewhere. Owning original artwork is swell but owning a decent copy will provide the same insight, in terms of what you take away for your own artistic endeavours. Perhaps you should see as much original artwork as you can if your goal is academic and you intend to write some criticism. But a photographer, for instance, produces photographs, not treatises. The idea that an artist needs to go to galleries and museums in order to be an artist is pompous.

 

[DonJ]

All this discussing of "fine art" and artist's statements, galleries and museums leads me to ask, how many forum members regularly go to galleries, museums, artists' studios? How many produce fine art, have published and sold books, have had gallery shows, are in museum collections, have sold to collectors? How many buy art? Or maybe it is all just a bunch of bullshit.

No book, not in museum collections, but have done everything else in your list.

 

[jnamia]

Going to galleries and museums doesn't make someone an artist and not going to those places doesn't prevent someone from being one. Galleries and museums display art, they don't make it.

Yes, you can learn from those places. But you can learn just as much elsewhere. Owning original artwork is swell but owning a decent copy will provide the same insight, in terms of what you take away for your own artistic endeavours. Perhaps you should see as much original artwork as you can if your goal is academic and you intend to write some criticism. But a photographer, for instance, produces photographs, not treatises. The idea that an artist needs to go to galleries and museums in order to be an artist is pompous.

I agree sure, it's not NECESSARY to go to a gallery or museum or own art, but there's something about it that's satisfying I've seen gallery walks on zoom, kind of a drag. I saw Walead Beshty's installation at the Petzel Gallery a few years ago, it was called “A Partial Disassembling of an Invention Without a Future: Helter-Skelter and Random Notes in Which the Pulleys and Cogwheels are Lying Around at Random All Over the Workbench” seeing that stuff in person was pretty mind blowing in a way that seeing beautiful glossy images in art in America or some online showplace or even a walk through in person on zoom couldn't replicate. It's hard to see quality of materials without being someplace in person too, but if reproductions are all that's available nothing wrong with that, I mean Karsh's book "portraits of greatness" is filled with reproductions of his portraits and from what I was told they were meant to be removed from the book and framed ..
treatises ? why not, it's the best when the treatise has nothing to do with the image ( or images ) and it makes you wonder what the hell you just looked at and read..

 

[VinceInMT]

All this discussing of "fine art" and artist's statements, galleries and museums leads me to ask, how many forum members regularly go to galleries, museums, artists'How many produce fine art, have published and sold books, have had gallery shows, are in museum collections, have sold to collectors? How many buy art? Or maybe it is all just a bunch of bullshit.

I travel quite a bit and when I do so I check for 2 things in my destinations: galleries/museums and a 5K or 10K race. I am a member and volunteer at our local art museum. I regularly go to gallery exhibitions/openings/receptions here. I read a few art magazines/journals, follow many artists I like on Instagram, and have a bookshelf full of art books. I just had my first solo show (for my BFA) and a piece that made it into a juried show just last night won honorable mention for 3D work at the awards ceremony.

IMO, “art” just isn’t about the finished piece, it’s about the entire process of creation and interacting in a community of others, just like here.

 

[VinceInMT]

I almost forgot, regarding going to museums and such, in a bit over 2 weeks I’ll be in Venice, Italy for the 59th Venice Biennale which is all Contemporary art. I’ll spend 5 days there before taking the train to Florence and do about 5 days there checking out the Renaissance.

 

[VinceInMT]

Saying that it’s not necessary to visit galleries and museum has a validity to it but I think it’s akin to telling a sports fan they don’t need to go to stadium or arena when they can just watch the event on TV.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Going to galleries and museums doesn't make someone an artist and not going to those places doesn't prevent someone from being one. Galleries and museums display art, they don't make it.

Yes, you can learn from those places. But you can learn just as much elsewhere. Owning original artwork is swell but owning a decent copy will provide the same insight, in terms of what you take away for your own artistic endeavours. Perhaps you should see as much original artwork as you can if your goal is academic and you intend to write some criticism. But a photographer, for instance, produces photographs, not treatises. The idea that an artist needs to go to galleries and museums in order to be an artist is pompous.

I learned much more a different way. Growing up whether my siblings and I needed to, one day each weekend we were dragged to an art museum in the Baltimore Washington DC area for many years. From just seeing all that art I learned about composition, balance left and right, light and dark ... , visual flow, ... and now when I go to take a photograph it all just kicks in and I can just pick out the compositions that come to mind for each subject.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pieter - I worked with museum display depts. They were routine customers of mine; I was even offered a job in one after I retired (not interested). I have seen a great many prints and paintings in person. I came from a family with significant museum representation. I've had my share of curators at my own dinner table. But if something bores me, it bores me, and I not going out of my way to see more of it, or purchase a museum membership where the usual-suspect "commodity" artists are monotonously featured over and over and over again.

But otherwise, yes, it can be very helpful to visit a museum with a good print collection, or some of the galleries which do. Seeing just a few really well made photographic prints in person is better than seeing a hundred thousand images on the web.

 

[DonJ]

Saying that it’s not necessary to visit galleries and museum has a validity to it but I think it’s akin to telling a sports fan they don’t need to go to stadium or arena when they can just watch the event on TV.

Only if there are museums that charge $100 admission, make you stay 50-100 feet away from the artwork, won’t let you go back for a second look, have unpredictable indoor weather events, and let people scream in your ear about how your favorite artist is a waste of wall space.

 

[markbau]

I've almost given up on going to photo exhibits in galleries. The current trend is for minimum lighting "to preserve the work". I saw a Linda McCartney exhibition in Australia recently and wish I had brought a flashlight. The last AA exhibition I saw in LA was horrible the lighting was so dim.
The quality of higher end photo books is such that the prints are pretty much what you would see if you were looking at original prints. I just received Kenna's new book "Northern England" and the repro is superb so I think I'll stick to books from now on until gallery curators start to "see the light"

 

[snusmumriken]

Those weren't Neanderthals, Pieter. Neanderthals were known to have some personal ornaments and likely used charcoal and red ochre colorants, but were never suspected of mural work.

Sorry, Drew, but that's no longer considered to be the case. See for example https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/neanderthal-art-discovery/

 

[jnamia]

Sorry, Drew, but that's no longer considered to be the case. See for example https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/neanderthal-art-discovery/

I don't think so, from what I read it's a Banksy ..

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hand and dot and line motifs are a far cry from the extraordinary animal painting etc going back to around 44,000 yrs or so that have no evident Neanderthal links. Of course, a lot of anything of this nature is hard to pin down. But at one phase, namely overlapping my formal education years, I did do a lot of direct paleoanthropology research myself, so have a decent idea how these things work. Plus, like that link itself stated, cave motifs tended to get painted over or receive added content over tens of thousands of years, so it doesn't mean it was all painted at the same time or even by the same people. Neanderthals weren't dumb by any means, but they were quite different in how they obtained and used materials, more locally than through trade connections. Smaller less mobile populations apparently. But they certainly were far more highly evolved and intelligent than the typical tagger or "street artist" around here.

 

[Don_ih]

there's something about it that's satisfying

I learned about composition, balance left and right, light and dark ... , visual flow

I agree that there is much to gain by seeing the real artwork in person. I wasn't suggesting there isn't. It may even make someone a better artist. But it isn't a requirement to become an artist.

“art” just isn’t about the finished piece, it’s about the entire process of creation and interacting in a community of others

The interaction with other artists (or people interested) is probably more significant to artistic development than seeking out art to look at - especially if the discussion about the work is open and encouraging, yet not lacking in genuine criticism. Being told you can do better often does much more than seeing so much that seems better than what you do.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hand and dot and line motifs are a far cry from the extraordinary animal painting etc going back to around 44,000 yrs or so that have no evident Neanderthal links. Of course, a lot of anything of this nature is hard to pin down. But at one phase, namely overlapping my formal education years, I did do a lot of direct paleoanthropology research myself, so have a decent idea how these things work. Plus, like that link itself stated, cave motifs tended to get painted over or receive added content over tens of thousands of years, so it doesn't mean it was all painted at the same time or even by the same people. Neanderthals weren't dumb by any means, but they were quite different in how they obtained and used materials, more locally than through trade connections. Smaller less mobile populations apparently. But they certainly were far more highly evolved and intelligent than the typical tagger or "street artist" around here.

Are you referring to the Australian Aborigines who have a continue and ongoing culture since 65,000 BC, the longest continuous culture?