What is "Fine Art"?

jnamia · Apr 22, 2022

DREW WILEY said:
My own aunt had four phD's and taught Art History for a major university for decades. She also has more murals on the Natl Historic Register than any other person in history. She willed me her hand-ground pigments and rare art books, and many of her studies in various media - gosh knows who is going to end up inheriting all that next (I don't even have the space to store it here); but it must imply something. Had many long conversations with her. I wasn't born yesterday.
But no, I haven't actually read hundreds of thousands of pages of "expert opinions". Neither have you. Makes no difference. I wouldn't even bother chiming in on a thread like this one if it weren't conspicuously a "just-for-fun" harmless flypaper sort of topic attracting silly banter.

But in terms of actual photographic applications, just a couple years ago I did return with some rock art shots in remote Nevada I took mainly for sheer personal esthetic reasons. But doing so using the enhancing contrast effect of a deep green filter in relation to etched reddish rock, plus contrast enhancement during printing and toning itself, studying the resultant prints led me to some very interesting conclusions regarding the subject which nobody had noticed before. I realized I was looking at a ritualized map explaining where to set fish traps during seasonal peak runoff periods. But that was only because I had been trying to understand similar patterns in that part of the West long before. The same sort of "chicken-scratches" on rock walls by a whole different culture in another part of the world might mean something else entirely. That's what's so fun about it. Right or wrong, the prints look nice for their own sake.

That's great that your aunt was well known and respected in her field, it has never been easy in this country, for women to excel in a male dominated world. At least her murals are protected from a government designed/funded/implemented projects, the NR might help protects the murals from urban renewal situation, but not really, it's just a red flag goes up. All the murals from the WPA are on the NR Still if someone owns the property (even the government) they can do whatever they want with it really doesn't afford complete protection... in the 1990s there was a huge PUSH to put concrete non attached garages on the NR ( like not attached to someone's dutch colonial 1930s kit home, cement block. ... ) as well as diners, street lamps, lighted billboards, pay phones, you name it. it it is over 50 years old and can be affiliated with something interesting enough that is "historically significant" it might get in.

You might give Sally Price a read, it's pretty enlightening.

KerrKid · Apr 23, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
Are you kidding? No, not yet.

Does no one realize I deliberately used all three forms of “fine”?

Don_ih · Apr 23, 2022

KerrKid said:
Has anyone defined what constitutes fine art, yet? I mean, that's fine if no one has, because it's not like anyone's going to get a fine if they don't.

I stated a useful way of understanding the term way up above. But people seem to want to believe that art is some mysterious undefinable, to elevate its status. It's not. Art is mundane, a basic human activity. "Fine" art is not practical - it is pure or refined artistic activity, not bound to an ultimate use of the final object. Most art is unskilled and banal, very little art is good, almost no art actually matters.

Craig75 · Apr 23, 2022

jnamia said:
what debatable is that that work is better than some graffiti artists who are practicing today or practiced 20-30 years ago or Sister Corina Kent . I don't care how long Neanderthals lasted for not sure why that is relevant, or that you claim to now be a paleontologist and expert in cave painting, I guess one can add it to the other claims you have made over the internet. This set of images we interpret as art because it's mysterious, abstract, beautiful, hand made &c but it more than likely was some sort of ritualistic imagery to celebrate a successful hunt ( or something else), not specificaly produced as art art has no other purpose other than to be art ... people making " things specifically as art" came about in the 1700s. it's been written about for decades by actual scholars, philosophers and art historians who know what they are talking about and can talk and write about it better than I can type about it.

now it's his girlfriend ?
it doesn't matter to me that they might or might not care about artist statements, that's there prerogative, and you already made the blanket statement that nobody cares about them. I don't doubt that they obviously knew Addams through endless sales of posters &c and his environmentalist efforts with the Sierra Club, this is his artist statement (maybe it's understood and not written). sorry I misunderstood the point of your post? to me it seemed to be about a creepy lecherous 50something year old guy who was making the moves on some woman half his age that you seemed impressed by? that's how I interpreted what you wrote. You made no mention about artist statements in your post, just the creepy situation and one pick up line bragging about how she was ripped off.

The problem for "art" then becomes that it was the creation of the 18th century bourgeois and its museums are the temples of the achievements and control of the bourgeoisie. In those conditions is "art" not just the enemy of the people... it opens up quite the can of worms

VinceInMT · Apr 23, 2022

KerrKid said:
Does no one realize I deliberately used all three forms of “fine”?

Yes, and you did a fine job of doing so. Maybe we now need to work on a type of refined art, perhaps painted from refined oil products and applied by refined artists who have been to finishing school.

Alan Edward Klein · Apr 23, 2022

VinceInMT said:
I suppose it depends on how narrowly you want to define “inspiring.” If means “exalting,” “held in high regard,” or uplifting, then I would disagree with that statement.

There is a whole approach to art that is classified as “abject” and I would certainly consider it art. That form is defined by the Tate as “Abject art is used to describe artworks which explore themes that transgress and threaten our sense of cleanliness and propriety particularly referencing the body and bodily functions.” Look up “The Power of Horror” by Julia Kristeva for a detailed look at this.

How about this? Art, especially good art, is food for the senses and for the spirit. It fills us with feelings. The best can be life-changing and can inspire us to become different people.

jnamia · Apr 23, 2022

It's impossible to come to a consensus with a group of people to define "art". I mean people on this site and in this thread can't define photography, and they are supposed to define art ?

jtk · Apr 23, 2022

"Definitions" are tools, not truths. They're as often used to disrupt arguments.

Truths are generally, but not always, shared cultural conveniences and agreements.

Arguments are recreations...

Willy T · Apr 23, 2022

jnamia said:
It's impossible to come to a consensus with a group of people to define "art". I mean people on this site and in this thread can't define photography, and they are supposed to define art ?

And again, as Pirsig said of "quality." You can't define or talk about art; you can only talk around it.

KerrKid · Apr 23, 2022

VinceInMT said:
Yes, and you did a fine job of doing so. Maybe we now need to work on a type of refined art, perhaps painted from refined oil products and applied by refined artists who have been to finishing school.

Brilliant!

VinceInMT · Apr 23, 2022

Alan Edward Klein said:
How about this? Art, especially good art, is food for the senses and for the spirit. It fills us with feelings. The best can be life-changing and can inspire us to become different people.

I like that as even abject art can do all of that.

VinceInMT · Apr 23, 2022

jnamia said:
It's impossible to come to a consensus with a group of people to define "art". I mean people on this site and in this thread can't define photography, and they are supposed to define art ?

Perhaps it’s more like the definition that Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart used for pornography when he simply said “I know it when I see it.”

For me, I am very generous when I come to defining art and tend to be very inclusive. However, I am not afraid to judge art and assign my own standards for quality to it, standards that only work for me and I have the full expectations that others will bring their own measuring sticks.

I will also fully admit that while I create lots of art, much of it does not meet my own standards for qulity, which is one reason I keep trying.

jnamia · Apr 23, 2022

Craig75 said:
The problem for "art" then becomes that it was the creation of the 18th century bourgeois and its museums are the temples of the achievements and control of the bourgeoisie. In those conditions is "art" not just the enemy of the people... it opens up quite the can of worms

exactly, and from early 1900s on the temple has been destroyed through unorthodox anti art establishment anti art anti patriarchy anti- ... and now bypassing the whole museum gallery institution "system" through the minting and sale of NFTs , .. and it is so anti establishment that the only way to purchase NFTs is through the purchase of formerly underground currencies developed for by people to launder their ill gotten gains from illicit activities .. LOL.

Sirius Glass · Apr 23, 2022

KerrKid said:
Does no one realize I deliberately used all three forms of “fine”?

But we do not have agreement so the bickering continues.

jnamia · Apr 23, 2022

KerrKid said:
Has anyone defined what constitutes fine art, yet? I mean, that's fine if no one has, because it's not like anyone's going to get a fine if they don't.

it was defined on page 1 of this thread

VinceInMT · Apr 23, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
But we do not have agreement so the bickering continues.

Bickering suggests that the topic is “trivial” or “petty.” With over 700 comments, it looks like it is neither.

Sirius Glass · Apr 23, 2022

VinceInMT said:
Bickering suggests that the topic is “trivial” or “petty.” With over 700 comments, it looks like it is neither.

Nor is it Kum By Yah either.

KerrKid · Apr 23, 2022

One is fine art and one is art. If you don't agree, that's fine.

jnamia · Apr 23, 2022

I'm not sure what the implied difference is, one is "fancier" than the other ( "finer" ) ?

jnamia · Apr 23, 2022

VinceInMT said:
Bickering suggests that the topic is “trivial” or “petty.” With over 700 comments, it looks like it is neither.

nothing new. LOL. there are people on this website whose job it is to contradict people, nothing wrong with that ( I guess? ) the problem is that people contradict accepted common definitions of "things" that relate to this website. they claim photography isn't "something made by chemical rays of light" because of whatever (a lot in play here) ... it will be virtually and physically impossible to get a consensus for even an accepted definition .. maybe definitions are "time based" and they expire.

KerrKid · Apr 23, 2022

jnamia said:
I'm not sure what the implied difference is, one is "fancier" than the other ( "finer" ) ?

Because I did them both and, due to my artistic license, I get to say what they are to me.

jnamia · Apr 23, 2022

so the difference between fine art and regular art is whatever the person who made them says ?
I would have imagined some sort of hierarchy ...

Pieter12 · Apr 23, 2022

jnamia said:
so the difference between fine art and regular art is whatever the person who made them says ?
I would have imagined some sort of hierarchy ...

There is. The Art Police. Beware the Art Inquisition.

MattKing · Apr 23, 2022

Pieter12 said:
There is. The Art Police. Beware the Art Inquisition.

No one ever expects the Art Inquisition.

(I couldn't find one with a stuffed armchair)

jnamia · Apr 23, 2022

Pieter12 said:
There is. The Art Police. Beware the Art Inquisition.

really ? by asking which one the creator suggested was "art" and which one was "fine art" and the basis of their decision I am the art police ? I thought the bottom one was the "fine art" piece not the top. .. now you're condemning me as "art police" , now that's kind of hilarious considering I think if you pick a piece of trash up off the ground or photograph it in situ and say it's art, it's art. in your perfect world no one is allowed to ask the artist's intent, no questions or critique is allowed?
bizarre ... the whole conversation seems kind of dumb.

What is "Fine Art"?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency