difference between "fine art photography" and "photography"?

[kbg32]

fine1    [fahyn] Show IPA adjective, fin·er, fin·est, adverb, verb, fined, fin·ing, noun
adjective
1.of superior or best quality; of high or highest grade: fine wine.
2.choice, excellent, or admirable: a fine painting.
3.consisting of minute particles: fine sand; a fine purée.
4.very thin or slender: fine thread.
5.keen or sharp, as a tool: Is the knife fine enough to carve well?

 

[gns]

Isn't "fine" used in the sense of "only appealing aesthetically", in order to differentiate from "applied arts" which serve some practical function?

To me, "Art Photography" refers to photographs that are valued primarily for aesthetic reasons rather than practical ones. Other photographs usually are referred to according to their application. IE: Architectural, editorial, advertising, Forensic, photojournalism, etc. Of course, many photographs may be valued as both practical and aesthetically interesting.

I often think the term "Fine art photography" is a label used to tell me that what I am seeing (or about to see) is good when that might not be clear from the work itself.

Gary

 

[jsrockit]

I often think the term "Fine art photography" is a label used to tell me that what I am seeing (or about to see) is good when that might not be clear from the work itself.

I had to laugh at this one...I've felt the same way at times. Or it could indicate that I'm about to see a lot of calander cliches. 🙂

 

[---f]

well, if you guys want to check out my fine art photography it's at http://thatjeffskin.com/

NSFW

 

[splitimageview]

I often think the term "Fine art photography" is a label used to tell me that what I am seeing (or about to see) is good when that might not be clear from the work itself.

I vote for this as 'post of the month.' 🙂

 

[gns]

You guys are right. Labels are just labels. They don't mean much and are of limited value.
If the photos are interesting, it doesn't matter what you call them. And if they aren't interesting, then it really doesn't matter what you call them.

 

[lewis44]

difference between "fine art photography" and "photography"?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Thardy]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I glad you posted this as the difference between fine art photography and photography.

I think the bulk of what is considered fine art photography by definition may not fetch much money at all compared to high end fashion, wedding, or commercial photography.

 

[rluka]

From the limited numbers of pictures I've seen, often times I can't see much difference between "fine art" photography and "minimalist" photography, usually close up of objects or photo of "art" objects.

As if the photographer are stamping "fine art" label to all their minimalist or surreal pictures.

 

[sebastel]

thanks to everyone for thoughtful contributions and a nice discussion.

cheers,
s.
(coarse art photographer)

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Has any one noticed that, when the photograph is of a young lady, stark naked, it's always "fine art" ?

Regards, David

 

[starless]

Hi,

Has any one noticed that, when the photograph is of a young lady, stark naked, it's always "fine art" ?

Regards, David

Yes, but only if it's black and white and low-key.

 

[Red Robin]

To me, "Art Photography" refers to photographs that are valued primarily for aesthetic reasons rather than practical ones. Other photographs usually are referred to according to their application. IE: Architectural, editorial, advertising, Forensic, photojournalism, etc. Of course, many photographs may be valued as both practical and aesthetically interesting.

I often think the term "Fine art photography" is a label used to tell me that what I am seeing (or about to see) is good when that might not be clear from the work itself.

Gary

Perhaps it's like "humility", once you think you've got it you've lost it. I think the term is best bestowed by another to describe an unsigned "work". The old saying "I know nothing of art, but I know what I like", fits me to a T.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I am surprised you would say that -- but not aghast.

Reminds me of the chap who discovered his wife, a professor of English, in bed with his best friend...

Husband: "Darling, I'm surprised at this turn of events.

Wife: "No, my dear, I am surprised, you are astonished".

 

[mep]

A 5D & a stagnant scene...BooYaa! Art. Fine as fine can be.

 

[Alfasud]

Art

Art

I believe that the purpose of artistic endeavour is to show the platonic essence, the 'true' sense of an object, person, scene etc. If the photographer succeeds in giving the viewer a sense of that essence, a sense of seeing beyond the documentary level, the resulting work is art.

I am sure many photographers strive to create art. Some do. I, however, believe that only the viewer can make that decision. If I experience the essence, it's ART; If I do not,...thank you for trying.

 

[starless]

If I experience the essence, it's ART; If I do not,...thank you for trying.

I don't agree with this. Art is not subjective.

I think A LOT of people confuse art with personal enjoyment and taste. Your opinion doesn't affect the work itself. For example my disliking of Ansel Adams's pictures doesn't mean they are not art.

 

[Dana B.]

Often this kind of thing is decided by "Art" curators, critics/reviewers and gallery marketing.

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/jul/20/john-szarkowski-photography-moma

A recent trip to the Getty Museum in Los Angeles bore this out. In the corner of small gallery on a century of sky photography was a large square frame. In the center was matte blue. Nothing else. No whisper of a cloud. Just royal blue.

 

[serg-k3]

In my opinion, artistic photography can determine its value in the gallery, the time and Number of views.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

For example my disliking of Ansel Adams's pictures doesn't mean they are not art.

That brings the discussion round to the essential point: who decides what is art what isn't?

My opinion: whoever is looking at it.