What is "Fine Art"?

[RalphLambrecht]

Does it really matter how you define it?. Will your definition have any effect on whether a gallery which shows photography will show your work?

They show your work if they think hey can sell it.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

[QUOTEIt'd be a lot easier and less controversial just to ask the question "What is art?"[/QUOTE]
OK ,let's try
art

is the conscious expression or application of creative

human skill and imagination, producing aesthetic or expressive work, primarily appreciated for its beauty or emotional and expressive

power by a group of people.

It is art when you,the artist, says it is and, it is fine-art, when others agree with you and are willing to pay for it.

 

[removed account4]

I love Tichy's work. He certainly was an "artist." And BTW, he did go to art school.

Back in the day they used to say, "The Art is the Idea."

yeah i know thta guy was brilliant !
and overcame a lot of obstacles to feed his soul

 

[KenS]

Thinking back a significant number of years.. I remember hearing a much experienced photographer (whose photographs were much admired by all who had the chance to have a look). he stated that any photograph that was pinned up on the wall with either a few thumb tacks or sticky tape that 'caught one's eye' enough to make the viewer get up close to see the composition, detail, tonal range and and 'admire' what they could observed (within the image), could be defined as 'fine art'

Ken

 

[RalphLambrecht]

It is difficult to define "art," but it is easy to define "fine art."

"Fine art" is art for display only, not for illustration, document, journalistic purposes, commercial applications, advertisement, etc. "Fine art" does not mean "art" or "good art" or "great art."

"Fine art" is opposed to "applied art." Specific works of "fine art" may be crap, and specific works of "applied art" or "illustration" may be great art, but there is nothing in the terms "fine art" or "applied art" that suggests one or the other.

"Fine artist" is something you can put on your tax forms. "Artist" is something that it is up to future generations to decide.

In my case, they probably say BS artist.

 

[DREW WILEY]

"Fine Art" is whatever you want it to be. And for that matter, so is "fake art". It's all about posturing, the "art of the bluff". And I sure wouldn't drop any of my own money on 99% of it. The other 1% is what I care about.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

After the apocalypse fine art may be Dogs Playing Poker.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I see more and more people setting up web sites (I plan to do one myself some day) to show and sell their photographs. A lot of them describe their work as Fine Art Photography whether it is darkroom produced or from an inkjet printer. Some of these people may be experienced and some not so.

So can someone define "Fine Art Photography" for me please? Does it matter how it is produced? Are we all Fine Art Photographers?

Peter

p.s. Apologies if this is in the wrong forum section.

tall question! To me fine-art photography is photography with the utmost care to the highest aesthetic level, using the best and most archival materials mounted and matted to museum standards.

 

[removed account4]

its just snobbism, lablels to boost one's ego, snarkiness
haughtiness and a wheelbarrow full of malarkey.
"fine art" these days is whatever the person calling
something "fine art" wants it to be. personally
i fine anyone who uses that word infront of anything
whether it is a painting or a photo, sculpture to be kind of obnoxious.
there is no such thing as a fine art photographer and never has been...
seeing "fine art" in the traditional sense had nothing to do with photography
( ever ) and for "painting" it probably died in edwardian times. these days its all ego and marketing.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

In many forms of expression there is a cadre of people who believe that they are the properly cultivated people who can decide on what "Fine art" is, to the exclusion of all others. And the rest of us plebs?

 

[faberryman]

In many forms of expression there is a cadre of people who believe that they are the properly cultivated people who can decide on what "Fine art" is, to the exclusion of all others. And the rest of us plebs?

I think that is a misreading. Historically, the term "fine art" was intended to simply distinguish between the visual arts and the applied arts, say between painting and pottery. Needless to say, over the years the distinction has become blurred to the point it is no longer very useful. I don't pay much attention to it. I am not a big believer in the conspiracy theories related to its use though.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

We disagree but I think it is a temporal distinction. We are talking ab out NOW.

 

[tedr1]

Art is what gets made by anyone with craft skills.
Fine art is the result when the maker has unusually well-developed skills.
But this only raises another question: what are unusually well-developed skills? They might include physical skills with paper, pencil, paint brush, spray paint can, chisel, stencil, clay, printing plate, camera etc. They might also include intangibles such as choice of subject matter, the combination of the medium used and the choice of subject, the attitude of the maker to the subject and the audience, the purpose of the work, and so on.
But you probably knew that already.

 

[faberryman]

We disagree but I think it is a temporal distinction. We are talking ab out NOW.

Doesn't much matter either way, does it?

 

[Berkeley Mike]

I think it does.

Changing technology and methods in our craft have always been a source of friction; resistance, shallow involvement. These things are constantly being thrashed about. In a contemporary venue the old values are thrashed as well. Values may be redefined in terms of what some think is an absolute aesthetic or what others feel is outmoded.

So, yeah, the temporal element can matter. The next question might be: Did values change or did we finally work hard enough to meet the old standard with our work.

And then there is the definition of Fine Art....this is where I came in.

 

[removed account4]

And then there is the definition of Fine Art....this is where I came in.

so what does reworking new stratagies and technologies old and new values have to do with current advertising terminology ?
i mean look at anyone who claims they are a "fine art photographer" they are all lanscapers who think they are AA ?!
seems to me there is more to fine art than AA style photographers ... i was listneing to lectures today about russian constructavism from a MOMA exhibit
if you ask me that has more to do with fine art than any AA style photography : DOWN WITH MANILA FILE FOLDERS LONG LIVE CARD CATALOGS !

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Everything! This is shallow to be sure but selling cutting edge understanding is a huge market...if we are defining Fine Art in marketing terms or popular terms. In any case, what we can experience and value NOW is all we know.

Is there some absolute reference point? Was the Mona Lisa a masterpiece before the paint was dry? Would the Venus de Milo be a masterpiece with its arms still attached?

 

[jim10219]

I think that is a misreading. Historically, the term "fine art" was intended to simply distinguish between the visual arts and the applied arts, say between painting and pottery. Needless to say, over the years the distinction has become blurred to the point it is no longer very useful. I don't pay much attention to it. I am not a big believer in the conspiracy theories related to its use though.

That's how I see it. Fine art is art created for art's sake. It's something without utilitarian function. It's counter would be craft. Craft is also made with a focus on quality, but it's made to serve a function.

That's why I wouldn't consider a typical portrait (even of pretty models), product photograph, or fashion photography fine art. It's not typically created with the sole purpose of being art in mind, even if it's created with artistic ideals. There are always exceptions, of course.

Fine art photography usually serves no purpose other than to be a means of expression of the artist. The photograph itself is just the language through which the true art, the idea, is expressed.

A lot of people get hung up on the idea that "fine art" has to be good art. It doesn't. The adjective "fine" isn't a descriptor of quality, but rather of magnitude of purpose.

 

[removed account4]

Everything! This is shallow to be sure but selling cutting edge understanding is a huge market...if we are defining Fine Art in marketing terms or popular terms. In any case, what we can experience and value NOW is all we know.

Is there some absolute reference point? Was the Mona Lisa a masterpiece before the paint was dry? Would the Venus de Milo be a masterpiece with its arms still attached?

i understand what you are saying, and it is all hype as far as i am concerned ... it has no meaning anymore
because that is what everything is, just empty descriptions of "stuff" trying to be the top of the pile. its like the word "cute" ..
or like my eupropean friends might say about americans using the word "love".
maybe i am just jaded .. i remember a story told to me by a masterful artist friend who used to rent from this guy who
a self declared "fine artist" and he used to look down his nose at
everything my friend made as if it was all garbage and this guy had his easel and beret and smock...
and the paintings he made were atrocious... but he was a "fine artist" who made "fine art" blech!
with regards to the mona lisa .. no clue, but i know it was in napoleon's bathroom, its was just a painting ...
and the venus with arms no clue but i know it would probably be in a conqueror's hoard.

if you look at the eastern anitolian kingdom of Ani some pay thousands of dollars
to go there on an eco-tourist trip the guides make up some nonsense about who made the city that
that is filled priceless relics of medevil freestanding domed churches ...
the locals steal the stones from to make a shed &c...
some say the stones are priceless art others say they are just stones ... and no amount of re-education will help.
it all boils down to jsg boggs and his bills...

 

[faberryman]

And then there is the definition of Fine Art....this is where I came in.

Now it's just a marketing term. There always have been, and always will be, arbiters of art and fashion. Don't like them, don't follow them. Who care is some rich guy pays a millions dollars for something you think is junk? How does that affect you? The test of time will sort the wheat from the chaff.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Maybe it is marketing for Art Schools to induce MFAs to enroll.

 

[blockend]

That's how I see it. Fine art is art created for art's sake. It's something without utilitarian function. It's counter would be craft. Craft is also made with a focus on quality, but it's made to serve a function.

That's why I wouldn't consider a typical portrait (even of pretty models), product photograph, or fashion photography fine art. It's not typically created with the sole purpose of being art in mind, even if it's created with artistic ideals. There are always exceptions, of course.

Fine art photography usually serves no purpose other than to be a means of expression of the artist. The photograph itself is just the language through which the true art, the idea, is expressed.

A lot of people get hung up on the idea that "fine art" has to be good art. It doesn't. The adjective "fine" isn't a descriptor of quality, but rather of magnitude of purpose.

I agree. People acquire and trade lots of things for large amounts of money that has no relevance for most of us.

 

[removed account4]

Emery Blagdon ...

 

[trondareo]

I am interested in art, not fine art. I went to art school to study design, but never encountered "Fine" art until I explored Photography. I think the concept represents beautiful images with as high technical precision as possible. Fine art photography is more of a style than academic art, although the images can take considerable effort to make. I consider academic art the creation of image or object to convey an emotion, a meaning or an experience of some phenomena of human being. The images do not need to conform to standards of beauty, technical precision or to a single media to be called art.

 

[jovo]