What is "Fine Art"?

[TheFlyingCamera]

On what planet?

That's been my personal experience. I find that if there's ONE photographer people in the general public know, it's Ansel Adams. Lately, the other one they know is Vivian Maier. And I've shown people who are not photographers my photography, which is definitely NOT rocks and trees and waterfalls, and frequently not f/64 front-to-back sharp (maybe even soft focus!), yet when they try to explain my work to a third party, they almost inevitably make a reference to Ansel Adams.

 

[Pieter12]

That's been my personal experience. I find that if there's ONE photographer people in the general public know, it's Ansel Adams. Lately, the other one they know is Vivian Maier. And I've shown people who are not photographers my photography, which is definitely NOT rocks and trees and waterfalls, and frequently not f/64 front-to-back sharp (maybe even soft focus!), yet when they try to explain my work to a third party, they almost inevitably make a reference to Ansel Adams.

That is the shame of our times. We have so many more opportunities to explore and appreciate art today, yet so few do it. People can name a few painters, composers and even fewer sculptors or photographers. Much less identify their works with the possible exception of da Vinci's La Gioiconda (titled Mona Lisa in English). Culturally, the US in particular is abysmal.

 

[Pieter12]

Of course commercial art affects emotions. If it didn't, why would advertisers use it to sell a product? Logos create the emotion of loyalty. Loyalty to a brand. It's very powerful. People want to be associated with the Swoosh of Nike and identify with great basketball stars. A nice commercial painting of a sweating guy in the the desert drinking down a cold Pepsi creates desire to buy the product. Art in this case is power to influence. That's emotion.

Anyway, you didn't respond to my question. My question of the poster was why he thinks it has to be "fine" art that only affects emotions? All art affects emotions. That's what art is. The question is what makes it "fine"? Why is Sally Mann's photo "fine" art but mine or yours isn't "fine" art?

Speak for yourself.

And their is no emotion of loyalty created by a logo. It is a symbol for a product or business. One might feel some loyalty to the product or business for a variety of reasons, many created by marketing. But the logo does not inspire loyalty, it is just a symbol you have on your clothing or other possessions that makes you feel somehow part of what the brand wants to broadcast. Such as embroidered logos on clothing or badges on cars. I personally do not like in-your-face-logos, removing or obscuring them when possible.

 

[awty]

People cant think for them selves, they require someone to tell them what is and what isnt.

 

[MattKing]

It isn't "fine art".
It is "Fine Art"
It is a label, not a statement of quality.

 

[markbau]

I really don't see the point of endlessly discussing what is and isn't art, who is and isn't an artist, which art is fine and which isn't, (is the opposite of fine art, coarse art) They are just labels. I just expose film, develop it, print it and put them in a box.

 

[Down Under]

Fine art - wasn't that what it was called when it got printed up big and put in fancy frames, hung on a gallery wall and (at least attempted to be) sold at inflated prices??

Something hand made (or in our case, hand printed) by a good craftsman, maybe.

I reckon blanks (#23) has it pretty well figured out. I'm also with Early Riser (#23) who has written a most sensible comment on this phenomenon.

I do a lot of photography, and I've sold a reasonable number of images (mostly to publishers) in my time. I enjoy what I do but I've. not really ever thought of myself as an "artist". Just someone who tries to make good images for specific purposes. Which satisfies me and my few remaining clients.

I also own three or four original Magnum prints from negatives by Henri Cartier-Bresson. Not sure what they are worth, but I keep them safely under lock and key, in archival paper and folders. Just in case.

I've read the fine biography (the Assouline one) of HCB. Somewhere in that book he said in an interview that he was a photojournalist and not a fine art photographer. Says it all, really.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I really don't see the point of endlessly discussing what is and isn't art, who is and isn't an artist, which art is fine and which isn't, (is the opposite of fine art, coarse art) They are just labels. I just expose film, develop it, print it and put them in a box.

Finally some one cut through the bandwidth wasting BS.

 

[Pieter12]

Finally some one cut through the bandwidth wasting BS.

Except if you are not (or do not choose to be) a commercial photographer working for hire and yet your work is displayed (and presumably sold) in galleries and museums, what are you making? Decorations?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Except if you are not (or do not choose to be) a commercial photographer working for hire and yet your work is displayed (and presumably sold) in galleries and museums, what are you making? Decorations?

I stated earlier that all my work by definition is Fine Art, obviously by definition. IMNSHO

 

[VinceInMT]

….But the logo does not inspire loyalty, it is just a symbol you have on your clothing or other possessions that makes you feel somehow part of what the brand wants to broadcast. ….

That goes beyond the logo and includes the brand name as it is common to see people tout the name as much as they would the logo in order to feel part of a fraternity and pump up their self-worth. An example would be, let’s see, hmmmm, something that starts with an “H,” oh yes, ”Harley Davidson.”

 

[VinceInMT]

It isn't "fine art".
It is "Fine Art"
It is a label, not a statement of quality.

^^^THIS^^^

Yes, a marketing term.

 

[VinceInMT]

…..Something hand made (or in our case, hand printed) by a good craftsman, maybe…..

I believe that, historically, this has been the challenge for photography to be accepted in the (fine) art world as many see it as not being hand made but the product of chemical/technological processes.

In an advanced photography class I took at the university last year, we wrote our own proposals and outlined our planned outcomes. I was the only student who was not going to use all digital. My argument, and one that I don’t necessarily fully believe in but wanted to bring into the discussion, was that digital moves the work just one more step away from showing the “hand of the artist,” something that, IMO, is always something that photgraphy has been criticized for. When we had our critiques, I always asked the others to identify the “hand of the artist” in their work. After all, whose ”hand” was shown in their work when they applied a filter in PhotoShop, theirs or the programmer who wrote it. It did create some interesting responses and veered into what we have looked at on this thread about ”what is art.”

That said, I don’t believe that the presence of “the hand” necessarily pulls a work into the realm of art either. I consider myself an artist and while I have been into photography for almost 50 years, I primarily like working by drawing with graphite on paper. And, in a previous career, I spent a decade as a draftsman, producing engineering drawings with a pencil on vellum, long before the the advent of computers to do the same. While I still admire “the hand” that is apparent in many of those works, I haven’t thought of them as art. Maybe I need to rethink that.

 

[Pieter12]

The hand of the artist is not necessary. Many established artists have workshops full of assistants and fabricators who do a lot of the final work. It is the artist's vision that counts.

 

[Vaughn]

I really don't see the point of endlessly discussing what is and isn't art, who is and isn't an artist, which art is fine and which isn't, (is the opposite of fine art, coarse art) They are just labels. I just expose film, develop it, print it and put them in a box.

And "film" is just a label, too.

 

[Pieter12]

put them in a box

Bury the box and it is performance/conceptual art. Or better yet, burn it.

 

[MattKing]

^^^THIS^^^

Yes, a marketing term.

Partially.
Also a term of classification and comparison outside the marketplace.
.

 

[Brendan Quirk]

What is fine art? It depends on the person, and how it is used, I suppose. Here are three common definitions I see; all are probably discussed somewhere is the previous 767 posts:

1. Art created for no practical purpose (regardless of quality). Not decorative or commercial art.
- definition I prefer, inclusive.

2. Art of superior aesthetic quality or by superior artists.
- a common understanding of the public (begs the question though), somewhat exclusionary.

3. Art of superior craftsmanship, expensive materials, or supreme effort. Usually dramatic and visually notable.
- usually promoted by those who wish to sell us things or garner likes; very exclusionary.

I will retreat now, as I usually know better than to get into these discussions!

 

[markbau]

And "film" is just a label, too.

I honestly have no idea as to what opinion/sentiment you are trying to convey. No one can debate what film is, art/artist is a term that has a different meaning for everyone, or, as in my case, the term is meaningless and I don't use it. The end result is a print/image, taken by a photographer, why complicate things.

 

[markbau]

Bury the box and it is performance/conceptual art. Or better yet, burn it.

Funny you should say that, a few weeks ago about 300 prints went into the rubbish bin, they were old, inferior prints that were taking up space.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That's been my personal experience. I find that if there's ONE photographer people in the general public know, it's Ansel Adams. Lately, the other one they know is Vivian Maier. And I've shown people who are not photographers my photography, which is definitely NOT rocks and trees and waterfalls, and frequently not f/64 front-to-back sharp (maybe even soft focus!), yet when they try to explain my work to a third party, they almost inevitably make a reference to Ansel Adams.

Better to be alive and not famous than famous and dead. I'm sure if those two could speak, they'd confirm my thoughts.

 

[Pieter12]

Better to be alive and not famous than famous and dead. I'm sure if those two could speak, they'd confirm my thoughts.

Not sure in Ms. Maier's case. I don't know if she'd be happy or care either way.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Not sure in Ms. Maier's case. I don't know if she'd be happy or care either way.

Well, I suspect she would prefer to be alive regardless of her fame or not.

 

[Vaughn]

I honestly have no idea as to what opinion/sentiment you are trying to convey. No one can debate what film is, art/artist is a term that has a different meaning for everyone, or, as in my case, the term is meaningless and I don't use it. The end result is a print/image, taken by a photographer, why complicate things.

Just that we all use labels (and film = cinema to some). You have labeled the label 'Art" as meaningless. It's your right and it's cool. But IRL, labels are just a part of the shorthand that makes communication easier and possible between people who want to communicate thoughts and ideas. If needed, one asks for a definition of a label someone uses for a better understanding without insisting that they use one's own definition.

For some, such as myself, the print is not the end result to be put away in a box. It is the interaction between the image/print and the photographer, and to take it one step further, the interaction between the print and the viewer that can be considered part of the end result. But that is just one way of approaching photography. YMMD.

 

[markbau]

Just that we all use labels (and film = cinema to some). You have labeled the label 'Art" as meaningless. It's your right and it's cool. But IRL, labels are just a part of the shorthand that makes communication easier and possible between people who want to communicate thoughts and ideas. If needed, one asks for a definition of a label someone uses for a better understanding without insisting that they use one's own definition.

For some, such as myself, the print is not the end result to be put away in a box. It is the interaction between the image/print and the photographer, and to take it one step further, the interaction between the print and the viewer that can be considered part of the end result. But that is just one way of approaching photography. YMMD.

I fail to see how communication is easier when labels like "art" or "artist" are so arbitrary, personal and subjective. Why get into a argument whereby one person says a print or a photographer is art or an artist when another person considers the same print rubbish or the photographer pedestrian? I just find the whole exercise a complete waste of time.

Take Mapplethorpe for example. I happen to think of him as one of the most important photographers of the last 50 years. He captured an era perfectly and with great photos. Another person may not be able to get past their moral baggage and label him a pornographer. In each others minds our positions are equally valid. No one is right and no one is wrong.

I once tried to read Sontag's book and found it unreadable, other people think of it as a literary and philosophical masterpiece. Who is right? All we have is our opinions.