What is "Fine Art"?

[removed account4]

sorry qg

i beg to differ ...

photographs that were taken last century (for example some of the
work of the french photographers latrigue and atget ) ...
they were not taken on the pretense to be "fine art" or even "art" but to day they are seen
to be just that. no statements, just child with a camera, and a documentary photographer with a paid commission ...

latrigue was a kid who took snapshots of french life, auto racing and picnics
( he wasn't even a teenager when the panned-speeding race car image was made ),
and atget's collection of old paris, and photographs of the gypsies, homeless and street venders ..
they were not taken to be anything more than documentary photographs, for the paris archives ...

today their works sell in fine arts galleries, and to some are the pinnacle of fine art photography -

fine art, art, snapshots, documentary photography whatever .. just labels

there are plenty of people who read things into photographs or paintings or sculpture or prose
or verse that were not intended by the maker,
even things that were never intended, including, being called " fine art " ...

 

[Ian David]

You can separate the three by holding them up to their intent, or prentense, and the degree in which they achieve their pretense.

Snap shots, documents, etc. pretend to be just that. And they achieve that completely.

Art pretends to be more. To oversimplify something terrible: a statement.
And it succeeds in that very well too.

Fine art pretends to be art.
But it fails, since (like i wrote before) its subject matter is fully exhausted in being itself. It's purely a "look at me!" thingy, with nothing to look at.

Yes, I think that the intent of the photographer is important in drawing a line between "art" and not-art.

Sometimes I think that even the intent to create art is not enough. I generally would not describe myself as an artist, because I think that whether what I produce amounts to art is not for me to judge. Alternatively, perhaps the intent to create art is enough, in which case it is for others to judge whether it is good art or bad art.

In practice, I think the term "fine art" is often just used as a marketing term by galleries to justify high prices, or high praise, for questionable art.

 

[jgcull]

For me, a fine art print is one I like so much I want to hang it on my wall. I want to look at it again and again, and show it to my friends and family.

 

[Ian David]

fine art, art, snapshots, documentary photography whatever .. just labels

there are plenty of people who read things into photographs or paintings or sculpture or prose
or verse that were not intended by the maker

I agree with you John that some pictures that were never intended to be "art" can come to be viewed as such. The intention of the creator is not necessarily the only consideration, but it often helps (if the answer is important).

I think the idea of art is a very slippery and incredibly subjective concept. In fact, I think that trying to define exactly what "art" means is pretty pointless. But it no doubt keeps a few philosophers busy, and allows a legion of academics and curators to get away with writing gibberish.

 

[Q.G.]

photographs that were taken last century (for example some of the
work of the french photographers latrigue and atget ) ...
they were not taken on the pretense to be "fine art" or even "art" but to day they are seen
to be just that. no statements, just child with a camera, and a documentary photographer with a paid commission ...

So the intent is in how we see them, not in what the maker wanted.

That's a fair point (were it so - and even if it were not).

Yet the distinction holds. We recognize these (assuming for now that they were indeed just pretenseless thingies, i.e. the makers thought nothing special about their subjects. Which begs the question why they shot what they shot so consistently) as important documents.
Important, because they are early samples of a new way in which people began to interact with their environment, their society, etc.

They however are clearly different, and still recognized as such, from most of the early family and other snap shots made by other photographers of that time.

Why would that be, you think?
It's not because for Lartigue or Atget the subject matter didn't matter. It did. They knew what they put in front of their lenses. They did have "a view" on things. Their view

They are not the pinnacle of fine art.
They are not fine art at all. Just as little as, say , W. Eugene Smith is fine art.
Both Lartigue and Atget were journalists.

And no, fine art, art, documentary, journalism: these are not just labels.
It's like saying, in a discussion about what makes a fine family car, "family car, truck, sports car, they are all just labels" and suggest a Mack truck as a good choice for doing the school run.
Don't know how anyone could think like that.

And yes: people interpret things. That's part of communication. Nothing wrong with that.

The point here is that fine art has nothing to communicate, except the "look at me, because i am sonething to look at" thing mentioned earlier.
Not even "look at my grandma, i love her to bits", or "look at the pain and desperation, don't you hate war", etc.
Nothing. Just "look at me! I'm pretty, so you must look at me!".

 

[Q.G.]

For me, a fine art print is one I like so much I want to hang it on my wall. I want to look at it again and again, and show it to my friends and family.

Which is perfectly fine, of course.
It begins to be interesting when you know why. Why you want to look at it again and again.

 

[removed account4]

I agree with you John that some pictures that were never intended to be "art" can come to be viewed as such. The intention of the creator is not necessarily the only consideration, but it often helps (if the answer is important).

I think the idea of art is a very slippery and incredibly subjective concept. In fact, I think that trying to define exactly what "art" means is pretty pointless. But it no doubt keeps a few philosophers busy, and allows a legion of academics and curators to get away with writing gibberish.

exactly!

 

[removed account4]

you enjoy labels i do not.

label all you want...

it is what it is, i prefer not to use labels and pigeonholes ..


"fine art/art/whatever" has plenty to communicate other than "look at me"
you just have to find the meaning in it, like everything else in life ...
maybe it is an unintended meaning, who knows ... the best of it all
has some personal-connection ...

pretty ??

as neil ( cheech marin ) and pepe ( tommy chong ) said so well in "afterhours"
--- this sure is ugly, no man, its art, the uglier it is, the more its worth --


john

 

[Q.G.]

I don't enjoy labels.

The point is that they are not labels. They are words having a meaning, signifying real differences.

I enjoy those different things for the different things they are, and the differences between them.

Something you cannot if you think their proper names are pidgeonholes that are to be avoided.
You're missing out on a lot of good stuff!

 

[JBrunner]

For me, a fine art photograph is a photograph that stands on its own, without context or caption, and regardless of the intent or lack thereof.

 

[Q.G.]

I think the idea of art is a very slippery and incredibly subjective concept. In fact, I think that trying to define exactly what "art" means is pretty pointless.

I disagree.
First, if we could not talk about subjective concepts, we would for ever be silent.

Second, trying to define (not the first thing you want to do) a slippery concept, talking about a slippery concept, rather than not doing so because it is a slippery concept, is the only way to deal with it.

The fact that it is there in a perhaps yet 'undefined form', means there is something there, even if we would choose to further ignore it.
It doesn't go away.

So the choice is to deal with it, or live in perpetual denial of something you can't help but acknowledge is there to stay (i.e. go, or already be, bonkers ).

It would be a terrible shame if only philosophers and other academics and art critics would keep themselves busy with art.
And it of course is not so.

It is also a terrible shame that indeed so much gibberish is talked about art (and many other things). But that can only happen because people allow that to go unchecked.

And if you can tell that it gibberish, you already have joined the philosophers etc.
So join in fully. If you can tell that it is gibberish, you can also tell why, and what there is to say that is not gibberish. Don't cop out because the concept is slippery. Get a grip!

 

[Q.G.]

"fine art/art/whatever" has plenty to communicate other than "look at me"
you just have to find the meaning in it, like everything else in life

In (the western travesty of) Zen perhaps.

There is as much meaning in it as there is in a blank piece of paper.
All there is is that "look at me, i'm pretty!" thing. Anything else is pretense.

Fine art = pretentiousness.

 

[2F/2F]

For me, a fine art photograph is a photograph that stands on its own, without context or caption, and regardless of the intent or lack thereof.

I agree, as I posted earlier.

Maybe I don't so specifically agree on the "without caption" part of it. Sometimes the caption and/or title is a part of the piece. Not all the time, but sometimes.

I think intent is in no way the determiner. It is the way it is used/presented that makes the determination. Is it there simply to be a photograph, or does it exist as a photograph primarily in order to serve a purpose other than this?

The line is blurred all the time. Documentary pix often blur the line, and sometimes even photojournalism, especially when viewed in retrospect. Additionally, you also see work that was originally commercial becoming fine art at a later date...but as I said, it is the specific use that is the determiner, not the original intent.

As an example of how I think on the issue: The Ansel Adams shots on the covers of his books are commercial, though they were originally intended as fine art. In this case, the shot is used to make the purchase of the book appealing; not solely to display the photograph. The shots within are fine art. They are placed there to be viewed as photographs. In his technical books, many of the photos that were originally fine art are used as instruction aids. Original intent, or the actual content or style of the photo has nothing to do with it. It is the use that matters....but not that it really matters what the definition is anyhow....

 

[JBrunner]

I agree, as I posted earlier.

Maybe I don't so specifically agree on the "without caption" part of it. Sometimes the caption and/or title is a part of the piece. Not all the time, but sometimes.

I think intent is in no way the determiner. It is the way it is used/presented that makes the determination. Is it there simply to be a photograph, or does it exist as a photograph primarily in order to serve a purpose other than this?

The line is blurred all the time. Documentary pix often blur the line, and sometimes even photojournalism, especially when viewed in retrospect. Additionally, you also see work that was originally commercial becoming fine art at a later date...but as I said, it is the specific use that is the determiner, not the original intent.

As an example of how I think on the issue: The Ansel Adams shots on the covers of his books are commercial, though they were originally intended as fine art. In this case, the shot is used to make the purchase of the book appealing; not solely to display the photograph. The shots within are fine art. They are placed there to be viewed as photographs. In his technical books, many of the photos that were originally fine art are used as instruction aids. Original intent, or the actual content or style of the photo has nothing to do with it. It is the use that matters....but not that it really matters what the definition is anyhow....

Are the shots on the covers of AA books photographs? I don't think so. For me a photograph is a print, made by the photographer. Anything else is an image, including a reproduction of an AA print. Having seen original prints I have great difficulty in calling a copy a photograph as if it were made by a photographer. Of course that's my personal take, and it is pretty old school. You can find people that believe a cell phone image is a photograph, and I can't say that they are wrong, just that I disagree, if that makes any sense.

 

[keithwms]

The posts placing highest value on aesthetics are probably in best agreement with the traditional definition of fine art.

It may actually be easier for us to agree on what 'fine art' and 'aesthetics' are not, than to say precisely what they are. (Critical theorists and artists themselves have wrestled with these definitions for a very long time, so... patience, patience y'all...)

I think we can probably agree that commercialism, mass production, imitation, etc. are not consistent with the ideals of fine art. That is progress.

Now, some may argue that fine art cannot be created in a casual way (i.e. in 'snapshooting' mode) but... I am not so sure. I find my own thoughts can front-load a photograph so much that whatever modicum of fresh aesthetic was present in the scene gets completely obscured. There is something very liberating about snapshooting sometimes and appreciating a scene for itself, as its own aesthetic.

 

[Ian David]

I disagree.
First, if we could not talk about subjective concepts, we would for ever be silent.

Second, trying to define (not the first thing you want to do) a slippery concept, talking about a slippery concept, rather than not doing so because it is a slippery concept, is the only way to deal with it.

The fact that it is there in a perhaps yet 'undefined form', means there is something there, even if we would choose to further ignore it.
It doesn't go away.

So the choice is to deal with it, or live in perpetual denial of something you can't help but acknowledge is there to stay (i.e. go, or already be, bonkers ).

It would be a terrible shame if only philosophers and other academics and art critics would keep themselves busy with art.
And it of course is not so.

It is also a terrible shame that indeed so much gibberish is talked about art (and many other things). But that can only happen because people allow that to go unchecked.

And if you can tell that it gibberish, you already have joined the philosophers etc.
So join in fully. If you can tell that it is gibberish, you can also tell why, and what there is to say that is not gibberish. Don't cop out because the concept is slippery. Get a grip!

I am happy to talk about subjective concepts, but on the condition that the concepts are recognised as such. This generally means that statements about, for example, what fine art means are generally prefaced with something like "In my view..." or "I think..."

The content of the above posts demonstrates that the label "fine art" is so subjective that everybody has their own definition of it. Your definition - "fine art = pretentious craft" - is your subjective view. That is clearly not how the galleries use the term. It is not how art writers generally use the term either. It is your subjective view. Which is fine. But I think you should just say so.

And I certainly agree that it is good for everybody to think and talk about art. But, in my experience, the most worthwhile discussions about art generally relate to specific pieces or bodies of work and involve an honest subjective discussion of what the work says/means/represents/etc to those discussing it, how effective it is, whether they like it, etc, and perhaps what the artist intended if that can be known.

 

[2F/2F]

Are the shots on the covers of AA books photographs? I don't think so. For me a photograph is a print, made by the photographer. Anything else is an image, including a reproduction of an AA print. Having seen original prints I have great difficulty in calling a copy a photograph as if it were made by a photographer. Of course that's my personal take, and it is pretty old school. You can find people that believe a cell phone image is a photograph, and I can't say that they are wrong, just that I disagree, if that makes any sense.

I think that all images created with photography, no matter how used, start life as photographs. Technically, the pix in a book are lithographic prints, not photographs. Still, most, myself included use the term "photograph" as a way to refer to the composition that is reproduced in the book (even if it is not technically a photographic print), and not to technically refer to the exact print in the book. In common use, the term has a broader use than simply "a picture made by exposing a light-sensitive surface", and I do not have a big problem with this, though I prefer the term "picture". If we are being more specific as to the exact prints in the exact book, we say reproductions or litho prints, etc. Either way, no matter the type of print, photographic or litho, the status as fine art remains for the pix in the book, IMO. They are there to be appreciated as pictures in and of themselves, not to sell a product or promote a cause.

This is exactly why I prefer to use the term "pictures" (...and why I called them "shots" in my post).

 

[Q.G.]

I am happy to talk about subjective concepts, but on the condition that the concepts are recognised as such. This generally means that statements about, for example, what fine art means are generally prefaced with something like "In my view..." or "I think..."

Not necessary.

All concepts are subjective. We are always expressing our view on things, what things are in our view.
This explicit "in my view" etc. is only needed if you are afraid that your view might offend someone you don't want to offend. It is a "please don't chop my head off if you don't like what you hear" plea.

And don't fall in the trap of thinking that subjective = without substance, unreal, freely interchangeable.
It's not.
It's about something. Something we all know. Something we share.

The content of the above posts demonstrates that the label "fine art" is so subjective that everybody has their own definition of it. Your definition - "fine art = pretentious craft" - is your subjective view. That is clearly not how the galleries use the term. It is not how art writers generally use the term either. It is your subjective view. Which is fine. But I think you should just say so.

So there is something to talk about!

So let's talk!

And I certainly agree that it is good for everybody to think and talk about art. But, in my experience, the most worthwhile discussions about art generally relate to specific pieces or bodies of work and involve an honest subjective discussion of what the work says/means/represents/etc to those discussing it, how effective it is, whether they like it, etc, and perhaps what the artist intended if that can be known.

"In my view" that is a cop out.
Let's talk about something presumed to be safe, instead of that "slippery concept" the thread is about.
Let's not. Let's not run away because it is difficult. Let's not throw the interesting topic out.

And an unsuccesfull cop out too: do you think that things would be different if we talk about a specific pice or body of work?
The concepts are all the same. Slippery then if they are now.

 

[removed account4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art_photography:munch:

 

[Ian David]

And an unsuccesfull cop out too: do you think that things would be different if we talk about a specific pice or body of work?
The concepts are all the same. Slippery then if they are now.

Not so. It is possible to talk in relatively concrete terms about our reactions to a specific piece or body of work, whether we like it, etc, without ever once trying to define what "fine art" means or whether the work comes within that description.

Re the OP's question, I do not think that it is possible to give any useful definition of what constitutes fine art. Almost everyone defines it differently - I can call anything I want "fine art". You may disagree with my choice, but so what? Who are the art terminology police?

 

[Ian David]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art_photography

Thanks John - that pretty much sums it up...

 

[removed account4]

Thanks John - that pretty much sums it up...

the pleasure is all mine!

 

[Paul Jenkin]

Interesting thread......

I was having a cyber-wander throught some photographic gallery websites on the net the other evening (for a bit of inspiration) and a couple of things struck me:

1) A huge percentage of what I saw was described (by the photographer) as "Fine Art"
2) There was no attempt to explain why the photos were "Fine Art" or how they achieved that high-status sounding designation when compared with similar work by other photographers which were just labeled as "landscape". "portrait", "still life" or other more understandable descriptions....

The overriding impression I got was that the term "Fine Art" is much over-used (according to Google, there are 66.6 million sites with that tag....!!) and the only common characteristics seemed to me to be:

(a) poorly lit
(b) very low - or very high - contrast
(c) "soft" focus and/or heavily filtered
(d) often significant motion blur
(e) mundane subject matter masquerading as something meaningful - a stone on a beach = "lonely"
(f) grainy and/or blotchy
(g) heavily vignetted
(h) toned in any of several icky ways
(i) bloody expensive if you want to buy a print

I have deliberately exaggerated to highlight the issues

Frankly, although some of the pictures were pleasant enough, the photographer seemed to want to justify the price by virtue of them looking like they were taken a hundred and fifty years ago and/or resembled a painting.

In my opinion, if "fine art" exists at all, it is what the viewer says it is - and not what the photographer describes it as.

 

[JBrunner]

I think that all images created with photography, no matter how used, start life as photographs. Technically, the pix in a book are lithographic prints, not photographs. Still, most, myself included use the term "photograph" as a way to refer to the composition that is reproduced in the book (even if it is not technically a photographic print), and not to technically refer to the exact print in the book. In common use, the term has a broader use than simply "a picture made by exposing a light-sensitive surface", and I do not have a big problem with this, though I prefer the term "picture". If we are being more specific as to the exact prints in the exact book, we say reproductions or litho prints, etc. Either way, no matter the type of print, photographic or litho, the status as fine art remains for the pix in the book, IMO. They are there to be appreciated as pictures in and of themselves, not to sell a product or promote a cause.

This is exactly why I prefer to use the term "pictures" (...and why I called them "shots" in my post).

Agreed. So then does a reproduction rise to fine art because an essentially similar concept is presented, even though it may be for educational or illustrative purposes? Does a coffee table book (images for it's own sake) contain fine art, whilst "The Negative" (images for education or illustration that were originally intended as art, but serve a different purpose in the book) does not?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

To me art is about practicing. There is, to me, craftsmanship involved. Any photographer that purposely go out of their way to create, convey, or speak something; who works hard in a darkroom to present a print that wholly is in unison with their vision and appreciation of the subject matter is an artist in my opinion. It's about the practice, about the purpose. Anybody can make a pretty picture. That's not art. The effort is. The effort to stand in front of your materials and try to make the best possible print you can. Whether it's to anybody else' liking or not is indifferent. That's opinion and a wholly subjective matter.

And I think I agree with Jason that reproductions don't count, no matter how good they are. Seriously, the hard work of the artist is diluted that way. Sure, it helps more people appreciate it, but it is only reproduction of the original art work. A copy.