Fine art photography

[rolly]

I disagree. The dialogue IS about what constitutes FINE ART. The OP may have asked several questions about business; but he says the magazine is about fine arts and the business of fine arts. So one should know what is meant by "fine art." Is "fine art" a euphemism for "what sells big time?" Maybe to some. But if you are going to use the word "art" then you should be prepared to hear that for some people, "fine art" goes beyond money. There's room for a lot of diversity in how people approach photography and "art."

Or isn't there?

 

[Damien Franco]

I think that right now we live in an age where the definition of fine art in general is changing. The advent of the internet certainly allows that many artists are able to make a living without having any representation (or want) in the "Art World".

If you define Fine Art by representation you miss one thing:

The artists needed that representation for monetary reasons. They needed gallery owners and curators to accept their works so they would sell.

Now a good marketer can make just as much, if not more, money by selling to the masses directly.

This is where the "Art World" is heading. IMHO

 

[Migracer]

A New Yorkers view of the world

A New Yorkers view of the world

I think that right now we live in an age where the definition of fine art in general is changing. The advent of the internet certainly allows that many artists are able to make a living without having any representation (or want) in the "Art World".

If you define Fine Art by representation you miss one thing:

The artists needed that representation for monetary reasons. They needed gallery owners and curators to accept their works so they would sell.

Now a good marketer can make just as much, if not more, money by selling to the masses directly.

This is where the "Art World" is heading. IMHO

Having lived and worked in New York for many years. I had the myopic view of the world too. See Saul Steinberg's New Yorkers Magazine cover. http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details.asp?sid=50326
I worked with my father at his 5 Ave studio during his "Gallery Days" and there is no question That the definition then was, if you were represented in a gallery you were a fine artist. But I completely agree with Damien that the definition has changed. I work at roughly 30 automotive events per year and at many of these venues there are many Fine Artist that make a very comfortable living working these events and internet sales. Google John Lamm, he is my example of what I would like to acheive with my fine art.

 

[retnull]

I think that right now we live in an age where the definition of fine art in general is changing. The advent of the internet certainly allows that many artists are able to make a living without having any representation (or want) in the "Art World".

If you define Fine Art by representation you miss one thing:

The artists needed that representation for monetary reasons. They needed gallery owners and curators to accept their works so they would sell.

Now a good marketer can make just as much, if not more, money by selling to the masses directly.

This is where the "Art World" is heading. IMHO

In a practical sense, yes.

But there's important differences between the inside and the outside of the Art World. For example, painter Thomas Kinkade probably makes a lot of money, by massive volume of sales. However, he has zero credibility within the Art World. Compare with photographer Andreas Gursky, a fixture within the Art World, who can sell single prints at $2 million to $3 million each.

But money is money, right? Does it matter if the money comes from volume of sales, or through carefully orchestrated inflation of value and artificial scarcity? Well, one difference is that Kinkade is unlikely to be remembered 50 years from now, while Gursky will definitely be in all the art history books.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I disagree. The dialogue IS about what constitutes FINE ART. The OP may have asked several questions about business; but he says the magazine is about fine arts and the business of fine arts. So one should know what is meant by "fine art." Is "fine art" a euphemism for "what sells big time?" Maybe to some. But if you are going to use the word "art" then you should be prepared to hear that for some people, "fine art" goes beyond money. There's room for a lot of diversity in how people approach photography and "art."

Or isn't there?

Dear Rolly,

The answer to your last question is 'apparently not', to judge from some responses here.

I assume that you have read Tom Wolfe's 'The Painted Word'? It is central to this thread. Those who have not read it, should, if this is a subject which touches them at all.

Your response, and mine, do not appear to me to be irrelevant.

Cheers,

R.

 

[35mmdelux]

"art" is in the eye of the beholder, as is fine art.

For example, recently an "art work" of Jesus appeared in NYC which was made of feces. Some called it art, while others (including me) called it cr-p.

BTW -- amateurs can also deduct gear expenses if they use it in a side job. Being a "pro" has little to do with IRS deductions. What matters is the context the gear was used.

For example, I may make my living as a welder and I moonlight as a photog. The gear used in both of these jobs is therefore deductible because it was used to produce income.

People of means ($) are always advised by their CPA's to have a legalized side business to run these expenses through. Make sure you keep good records in case your called in to discuss.

 

[Chris101]

"art" is in the eye of the beholder, as is fine art.

For example, recently an "art work" of Jesus appeared in NYC which was made of feces. Some called it art, while others (including me) called it cr-p.
...

The "I don't know art, but I know what I like" argument is not a good one for this type of discussion, as it serves to cut off individual opinions. There is a range of work that can be universally accepted as 'art'. One can decide if one likes a particular piece, but that does not kick it out of consideration as art.

Also picking a Serrano as the prime example is not fair, because that's more about the controversy. The surrounding controversy is the actual art piece, not the object itself.

 

[rolly]

The "Art is in the eye of the beholder" argument is interesting. Let's use the case of photography, rather than Art since we all care about photography. As a photographer, I have come to where I am in this pursuit, hobby, pasttime, work, whatever word you need to insert here, insert it-- I have come to it as both a learner, who appreciates the work of others, who has been influenced by other photographers, or even painters, or even just by walking around or growing up in the world that is my own little world. I am influenced. So in that sense of being a photographer, I am part of a larger milieu, or if I really have looked at a lot of other photography, I could even say I am part of a tradition, or a style of photography. I may even have heroes who give me the inspiration to rise up to that level of work. As a part of the overall world of photography, as a consumer of it, yes, art is what I behold to be art, based on how I havebeen influenced. If I have never seen a Winogrand photo, and one day I see a few of them and I like them very much, though I don;'t know why because up to now, my ideaof photography is landscape masterpieces, then how to explain what art is? Is it inside me, or is it outside. Or both?

On the other hand, after some time, I start to develop my own way, my own style, my own thing with photography. After a while I see my own shots have things in common. I start to see I shoot particular subjects, or when I am photographing, let's say the street turns me on and excites me, or portraiture or landscape or wildlife or sports or homelessness. I start to follow my own intuitions and instincts, and I also start working to make my technique better.

Again, when I look at many many of the photos on this site, I see there is a lot of aspiration to become better. There is a lot of care that goes into shooting. Even many of us who disavow ambition as far as commerce, or as far as giving a hoot if we are artists or monkeys-- there is this desire to learn, to do good work. There is, in other words, an interplay between being part of the tradition of photography and of doing our own thing.

I would say that it's more accurate to say Art is in the Work of the Beholder.

 

[mh2000]

art is something you do inspite of the money, it is something that you are driven to do, a passion and a need... being recognized is nice, but the lack of recognition will not stop a true artist from creating... the muses provide both whips as well as kisses...

I have studied at the Art Inst. Chicago and shown in galleries enough to claim to be an "artist" ... inspite of having little income to show for it.

Regarding the IRS, you can claim to be anything you want and even carry your losses... you just don't get anything from them until you actually make money... so you can even be a "fine artist" in the eyes of the IRS with zero art income... but who cares?

 

[hawkeye]

Well I'm happy to see so much thought about art in this thread. I've been on both sides of the issue being both a commercial magazine photographer and a gallery owner at one point.

My original post was to get ideas about what directions I can offer the magazine I write for. Find a hook to tell the story. The focus was to be the business of selling prints. whether it is viable and what sort of experiences shooters have had.

As for the definition of fine art or even art I can only present my definition which means something to me but who knows what it will mean to anyone else.

I feel that art is the attempt we make to connect through some medium--painting, photos, music--to other people. And to do it without sentimentality and with authenticity. In photography it also means seeing new. I really like the photo of the clothes pin on the line because it makes me see an ordinary thing in a new way. Chris saw something we all see and had the skill and heart to show it a new way. It doesn't have to be a big idea but that shot helps to remind me to take pleasure in the everyday things of the world. Things that an artist shows us. Chris did that. That's art for me.

Now back to my magazine. I want to know what articles the magazine writers could pursue that would be helpful to photographers who might want to sell "art" or who sell art and need help to sell more.

By the way you all make this forum a treat.

Steve

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

art is something you do inspite of the money, it is something that you are driven to do, a passion and a need... being recognized is nice, but the lack of recognition will not stop a true artist from creating... the muses provide both whips as well as kisses...

That idea is what allows the parasites of the art world to profit while artists starve. I've heard it as justification for the way artists are treated in our society and in the art world and it is disgusting. Artists need to start thinking like the skilled tradesmen that they are and stop letting others profit from their hard work. Lack of recognition may not keep an artist from creating but lack of money will stop him cold. No money = no food. No food = you DIE. You cannot live on "air" as Fred said earlier that some artists supposedly do. You need food. Shelter. Medical care. Those cost money.

 

[mh2000]

regarding the connection of being a "fine artist" with representation or money making... Mr. van Gogh only sold 1 (maybe 2) paintings in his lifetime (late)... was he a fine artist before he sold a painting? Was he a fine artist after making a few meagre francs off his sale? Was he nothing until his paintings started selling in the millions?

In a sense, I believe being an artist is what you have in your heart. If you fiercely believe you are an artist and are actively working on your art, then you are an artist, period. You may be a very bad artist (there are way too many of these), but you are in fact an artist... and being an artist is nothing less than being a driven fool (and I mean that in the kindest manner).

 

[mh2000]

ok, if you can deduct personal artist expenses against teaching income... I didn't know you could do that (I'm not a teacher)... and I've only filed schedule C's 5 or 6 times for large art projects... and I had an accountant help me.

>>They want to deduct that loss against other work, such as teaching income.

 

[mh2000]

How many? 1 beholder other than yourself? 2? 1,000,000?

>>I repeat, fine art is in the eye of the beholder and in the context of its time.

 

[35mmdelux]

regarding the connection of being a "fine artist" with representation or money making... Mr. van Gogh only sold 1 (maybe 2) paintings in his lifetime (late)... was he a fine artist before he sold a painting? Was he a fine artist after making a few meagre francs off his sale? Was he nothing until his paintings started selling in the millions?

In a sense, I believe being an artist is what you have in your heart. If you fiercely believe you are an artist and are actively working on your art, then you are an artist, period. You may be a very bad artist (there are way too many of these), but you are in fact an artist... and being an artist is nothing less than being a driven fool (and I mean that in the kindest manner).

Thank you.

 

[mh2000]

well, if making money is your first priority, then you should pass on the art thing altogether... because most of the requirements for success in this field have little to do with artistic talent... and if you have these requirements, then you would be more successful using them in almost any other field of your choosing...

But big picture, why does anyone *deserve* anything? We are all born into the world the way it is... being an artist in our society is the reality that we have... if anyone doesn't like it, tough. Sure, I wish I came out of art school and just started being supported... so do alcoholics...

>>That idea is what allows the parasites of the art world to profit while artists starve. I've heard it as justification for the way artists are treated in our society and in the art world and it is disgusting. Artists need to start thinking like the skilled tradesmen that they are and stop letting others profit from their hard work. Lack of recognition may not keep an artist from creating but lack of money will stop him cold.

 

[mh2000]

>>I have never heard him referred to as "Mr. van Gogh,"

Until we established if he was in fact a "fine artist," I thought I would give him the dignity of being formally addressed

🙂

>>Yep that about sums up my position - if you say you are, you are.

I have spent too much of my life in art... and don't strike artists off the "list" just because they are not in a gallery... there have also been plenty of artists that I thought were nothing, but they could keep getting their work into galleries because they were such social wizards (hats off to them!)... everyone is who they are.

If you say you are an artist, I'll take you at your word... and silently put you into my "good artist" and "bad artist" lists.

🙂

 

[Ray Nalley]

I show photos in galleries and sale some. But I have never considered myself an artist. A good technician perhaps, but certainly not an artist. Can't even figure out what the word means and don't want to be tagged with that label anyway.

My standard line at opening parties is, "While you are standing in an art gallery, my stuff on the walls was not produced by an artist."

 

[mh2000]

Ray, photography covers a wide spectrum of purposes... people often lose track of that.

 

[MickH]

I have read this thread with great interest, learning something of the US tax system along the way - one of the reasons I love t'internet so much is that one can pick up all sorts of incidental information.

Contributions have been made by artists, artisans, teachers and philistines. Several folk have attempted to define "art" but I still struggle with the differentiation between "art" and "fine art". I agree with the sentiment that if someone calls themselves an artist, then that is what they are and what they produce is art. Whether anyone else likes it, or it has a monetary value is beside the point.

I knowthat unversity courses in "fine art" exist, maybe some of you teach, or are students of these. Are there courses in "vanilla" art? I doubt it very much. Googling doesn't help me with a definition, so I am left to my own devices. It seems to me that "fine art" is a relatively recent label used to elevate some work above other art for either commercial or pretentious reasons: "I am (or my client is) a fine artist." Is it really that simple?

I am genuinely puzzled.

Thanks,

Mick