What makes fine art photography "fine art"

gb hill · Nov 3, 2012

batwister said:
A Leica is a bare minimum. This is what I've discovered through poring over books and literature. But go medium or large format if you want to literally nail the 'fine' bit - assuming you know how to focus.
35mm photographers rarely win the fine art label from critics because their negatives are too small and heads too big.

William Eggleston is a Fine Art photographer who used 35mm film. Today it seems a lot of Fine Art is done with digital camera's & lot's of post processing so I feel that there is open space for Fine Art photography in the 35mm film format, especially B&W. To me Fine Art consist primarily of these 3 things. Subject matter, does it inspire the viewer, & will it sell.

Bill Burk · Nov 3, 2012

Darkroom317 said:
It is all about intention and perception. Fine art generally refers to something that is about higher thought and feeling.

Yes, I think that is a fine definition.

MattKing · Nov 3, 2012

To the OP:

If you scroll through APUG, you will find many, many, many threads where this and similar questions have been asked and debated.

You might find those threads interesting, but if you read them I have one warning: watch out for posts by blansky:munch:

baachitraka · Nov 3, 2012

One that makes you stand at one place and allow your body and mind focus on one thing

benjiboy · Nov 3, 2012

Wars have been started by less contentious questions than this, I suggest the O.P concentrates on becoming fine photographer, and not producing "fine art".

removed account4 · Nov 3, 2012

LOL seems like every other week the same thread pops up
but with another first poster ...

fine arts is just a title.
art schools teach it ... rather than vocational schools.

anyone can say their photography is "fine art photography"
but it seems that mainly ansel adems wannabee landscapers
use the title the most.

do what eddie suggested .. just make photographs

Jim Jones · Nov 3, 2012

zackesch said:
. . . More then anything, I want to find my photographic voice and have my voice recognizable. . . .

Too many have found the best way to make their style recognizable is to trumpet whatever they do, regardless of any intrinsic value. This means studying psycology, marketing, and the art scene; and by courting anyone who can promote their work. Fortunately for the art of photography, others have pursued some area of photography that inspires them to exert the effort needed to become masters of their field. Edward Weston and Eugene Atget are examples of this. Only by the efforts of a few who recognized Atget's accomplishments has he achieved the recognization denied during most of his photographic career. Weston had some help from his wife and fellow photographers in achieving some fame during his lifetime.

Ask yourself, "Which is more important, your photography or your fame?" Perhaps you can join the few who have both. Until then, concentrate on just one.

zackesch · Nov 3, 2012

I suggest the O.P concentrates on becoming fine photographer, and not producing "fine art".

This is my intention for this post exactly. I am interested in what qualities make fine art photography "fine art." After the numerous responses, I understand now that there is no set of qualities of that make it fine art. My goal as a photographer is to master one genre of photography. Fame is not my goal.

There are a number of competitions in my area and my goal is when I enter my competitions, and have my work easily recognisable from one competition to the next. If prints are sold along the way, that would be great, but not my main goal. I do not aim to please the masses, but to challenge myself and discover what I am fully capable of.

Thank you all for your very helpful and informative posts.

StoneNYC · Nov 3, 2012

zackesch said:
How about the german taxi driver and he got his work shown of all the topless women in his cab. Isnt that fine art too stone?

If he makes metal prints and puts it in a fancy frame and it sells for assloads of money, then sure

~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

ajs77306 · Nov 4, 2012

batwister said:
There isn't really an answer, especially on this forum, but two things are for certain - an art education helps and the validation of critics is absolutely necessary.

A Leica is a bare minimum. This is what I've discovered through poring over books and literature. But go medium or large format if you want to literally nail the 'fine' bit - assuming you know how to focus.
35mm photographers rarely win the fine art label from critics because their negatives are too small and heads too big. (Try Googling a picture of Garry Winogrand and tell me he doesn't have a big head. Critics don't like this, as it takes up gallery space reserved for their own giant craniums - physically and otherwise.

This is a very subjective statement. Use whatever equipment you have available. The camera gear you mentioned is just fine. My response is not with respect to pouring over books and making historical references. My college photography professors *all* used a combination of formats, all of whom have done world-wide shows, won awards, and hold distinguished academic positions.

Diapositivo · Nov 4, 2012

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet"

(somebody from a balcony)

batwister · Nov 5, 2012

ajs77306 said:
This is a very subjective statement. Use whatever equipment you have available. The camera gear you mentioned is just fine. My response is not with respect to pouring over books and making historical references. My college photography professors *all* used a combination of formats, all of whom have done world-wide shows, won awards, and hold distinguished academic positions.

I was playing around of course, but there is definitely a bias towards large format work. Agree that using multiple formats (playing with the medium) is great and some work very well this way. But there are very few notable for it, because the art world likes auteurs - people who do the same thing over and over in a way that makes us familiar with their work. Bresson (35mm), Strand (LF), Weston (LF), Ansel (LF), Robert Adams (MF), Stephen Shore (LF) - their approaches are tailored to their formats, and they've stuck to their single minded technical (and subjective) approach to great success. It shouldn't be forgotten that your camera format informs how you investigate photography and it takes a lot of investigation to get anywhere. As with painting, your choice of materials is your first artistic decision. 'Whatever' won't do. <subjective> Isn't that how we ended up with postmodern trash? </subjective>

Technique, subject and aesthetics have a symbiotic relationship in the best art. I'd say the OP should use the Elan, but play to its strengths and weaknesses, rather than trying to work around them. There's always a better tool, but it always gets to a point of accepting your camera's and photography's limitations before you might as well take up painting. Large format is like the cut off point, which is why I think many of these photographers dabble in and take from painting - they're so close to it.

mark · Nov 5, 2012

batwister said:
It shouldn't be forgotten that your camera format informs how you investigate photography and it takes a lot of investigation to get anywhere.

I like this comment.

Jim Jones · Nov 5, 2012

batwister said:
. . . but there is definitely a bias towards large format work. . . .

Yes, and for many reasons. Ansel Adams compared the negative to the musical score, and the performance to the print. The better the score, the more possibility for the print. However, concept is often more important than technically perfect prints. The 1954 Pulitzer Prize in photography was earned by amateur Virginia Schau with a Brownie box camera.

batwister · Nov 5, 2012

Jim Jones said:
The 1954 Pulitzer Prize in photography was earned by amateur Virginia Schau with a Brownie box camera.

Photojournalists only I think.

DWThomas · Nov 5, 2012

Enh -- empirically I think "fine art" photography is whatever the guy behind the camera decides to call fine art. I usually use quotes around the phrase to indicate I don't take it too seriously. One or two posts upthread mentioned sales - I don't see that as a requirement either. I've seen work that got awards, presumably based on composition, lighting, tones and other factors, yet the subject was some rusty machinery, crumbling building or the like that didn't have customers lining up with checkbooks in hand!

I also agree that some may use it to imply non-commercial, non-contract, 'I do what I feel like doing' photography, which is pretty much how I see it. I actually got a call from someone who'd seen and liked my work that wanted an event photographed -- had to say "sorry, don't do that."

I'd say "just do it." Eventually you may hit upon some inspiring series that has others calling you a "fine art" photographer. Then it's gotta be true!

What makes fine art photography "fine art"

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency