What is "Fine Art"?

[benjiboy]

I don't know what makes a " fine art" photograph, all I do know is too many people try to make them when they can't even make fine photographs.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes, but maybe they will start to ask questions and learn.

Steve

 

[Q.G.]

thomas

you should know by not on page 7 of the thread
that if you don't "agree" you are wrong.

If you don't agree, you might want to participate in the discussion, and share why you don't, and point out where others are wrong.

Wanting to be allowed to state your opinion (noone even suggests you are not, except you, Thomas), and allowing others to disagree and state their opposing opinion, are one and the same thing.
At least they should be.

And it is what distinguishes a discussion from a poll, Keith.

 

[keithwms]

No one wants to silence anyone. Quite on the contrary, it'd be nice if a discussion had balanced participation from lots of different people.

Enjoying a discussion without becoming argumentative is an unspoken piece of 'threadiquette' that sometimes gets neglected and inevitably leads to harsh words. If they feel like they're getting talked over, some members check out or click the 'ignore' button. That's unfortunate, when so many excellent opinions may be read here.

Let me suggest that those who have extended, deep and brilliant thoughts on this or other subjects might create a blog essay. After 16+ comments in a thread, I assume that a person would have plenty of material to refine into a nice article, and I am sure we'd all read it

Another point is that if I landed in this thread, I'd be especially interested in the thoughts of those people who are known contributors of exceptional photographs in the galleries and portfolios.

 

[removed account4]

Both Lartigue and Atget were journalists.

all photographers are journalists ... and depending on who is looking
at their images, they can all be considered "fine artists".

it is all subjective.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No one wants to silence anyone. Quite on the contrary, it'd be nice if a discussion had balanced participation from lots of different people.

That may be nice for you, but for those of us who are always right that is a bunch of hu-wee!

Steve

 

[mooseontheloose]

Oy! Who knew I'd open such a can of worms? And I'm still confused...


What is art as opposed to fine art? How are those concepts defined through photography? Who defines it? Like many others who have posted to this thread, I don't know that it can be defined in a way that is (mostly) agreeable to all, and I'm not sure that I would agree with it anyway.

Am I photographer? Absolutely. Am I an artist? I don't know. But I'm going to keep working on what it means to me. This thread, for all it's to- and fro-ing has provided a lot of different insights for me to chew on for a while.

 

[Ian David]

No one wants to silence anyone. Quite on the contrary, it'd be nice if a discussion had balanced participation from lots of different people.

Enjoying a discussion without becoming argumentative is an unspoken piece of 'threadiquette' that sometimes gets neglected and inevitably leads to harsh words. If they feel like they're getting talked over, some members check out or click the 'ignore' button. That's unfortunate, when so many excellent opinions may be read here.

I think you are right Keith. One thing I have observed, however, is that many APUG threads do not really involve much discussion at all, but rather just a series of people stating their views and not really interacting with the thoughts of others at all. Not always, but quite often. I agree that unnecessarily argumentative or repetitive posts can be tiresome. But as long as there is respect and a bit of tact, I think it is nice to see discussions with a bit of spirit sometimes, especially when lots of people are chipping in. I reckon it can actually make the place feel more like a community, rather than less. Just a thought...

Another point is that if I landed in this thread, I'd be especially interested in the thoughts of those people who are known contributors of exceptional photographs in the galleries and portfolios.

Not sure that I would need to see someone's work before taking their thoughts on a philosophical question as seriously as anyone else's...
But I take the hint. It is about time that I for one got off my behind and embraced digital to the extent necessary to scan and post some images here!

 

[Willie Jan]

Creating pictures that have content is not easy.

At exhibitions of photoclubs I see a lot of pics that are snapshots taken. But there is no real interest in the subject that is shot. For instance when you shoot a pic of a building with a certain shape, you will have to investigate first why the shape is made as it is. Who is the architect. If these questions are answered you probably will make a different pic of the building that contains more info than a snapshot.

I am also strugling with this last weeks. My technical skills are becoming to a professional level now after learning the last 2 years, and now the time is right to look further. "My wife asks me when I am going to create beautifull images in stead of technical perfect images..."

Could a coach help to get you on the right path?
They look from a different point at you work and might be of help.

 

[2F/2F]

Wait a minute....Did someone say can of worms.....mmmmmmmmmmm......

 

[Steve Smith]

What is art as opposed to fine art?

One of my friends owns a gallery. I asked her what the difference was between art and fine art. She said about 40% extra on selling price!


Steve.

 

[JBrunner]

There's art, and then there's Art, and of course fine art, and also Fine Art, which BTW is different than Find Art, which is a children's book with very complicated and colorful illustrations, in each of which a certain Canadian photographer and his camera is hidden.

 

[removed account4]

One of my friends owns a gallery. I asked her what the difference was between art and fine art. She said about 40% extra on selling price!


Steve.

EXACTLY

it is a term concocted
to assure higher sales prices ...
just a label ...

 

[jgcull]

>>>"My wife asks me when I am going to create beautifull images in stead of technical perfect images...<<<

That makes me smile. You've gotta love those people who know you closely enough to say that! Don't you?

 

[Willie Jan]

>>>"My wife asks me when I am going to create beautifull images in stead of technical perfect images...<<<

That makes me smile. You've gotta love those people who know you closely enough to say that! Don't you?

maybe i should ask my wife to coach me

 

[ChristopherCoy]

What is Fine Art?

I see the term 'fine art' all the time in the photography world, but I truly have no idea what it actually is. When I think of a 'fine art' portrait, I think of a model sitting in a classical pose on the end of a settee, with some low key lighting, and rich jewel toned colored fabrics. Or I think of some abstract photo that would be hanging in some expensive, swanky New York or Beverly Hills loft space. Whether or not that is actually what 'fine art' is or not I don't know, but those are the images that the words bring up in my mind when I hear the words.

A lot of photographers use the term and according to Wiki, 'fine art' photographs are created solely for aesthetic purposes, unlike photojournalism photos which are created to tell a story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art

Is there an actual definition to Fine Art, or has the term become so mainstream and muddy that it is an 'umbrella' term now, covering many different styles of photographs? Does the method of printing (i.e. canvas, b&w, mounted) define it as 'fine art'? Or is it a particular style of shooting/lighting?

What is your opinion or fact?

 

[wildbill]

Here's a thread from the last time someone asked the same question: 6 pages
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

here's another: 5 pages
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[keithwms]

Oh lord. This has been debated so many times Always ends the same way: to each his own.

I will say this: Those photographers who describe their own work as "fine art" risk invoking all manner of visceral reactions. My advice is to avoid the term as you would the plague, ebola, amoebic dysentery, or a staph infection. You must strive to cleanse yourself of all pretense and resist any attempts by others to adhere bleak diagnoses to your work. "Fine art" is a fundamentally useless term now.... just in my opinion.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

It may be the same conversation, but I posted a new thread.

All opinion's aside, are there any techinical differences between Fine Art and a 'regular' photograph?

 

[keithwms]

No.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Fine art is art that is for no other purpose than display, as opposed to applied art. The term has nothing to do with whether something is good art or bad art.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Fine art is art that is for no other purpose than display, as opposed to applied art. The term has nothing to do with whether something is good art or bad art.

That's what I was looking for. Thanks!

 

[Aristophanes]

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

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Here's a thread from the last time someone asked the same question: 6 pages
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

here's another: 5 pages
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Perhaps the topic should be a sticky thread....

 

[Vilk]

... Always ends the same way: to each his own. [...] "Fine art" is a fundamentally useless term now...

I'll have to tell the Fine Art Dept at our university... Poor souls, I bet they have no idea!