daveleo
what?
well . . . Vincent is sitting right here on my porch and he says the same about your stuff !
(I'm trying to decide if that proves my point or doesn't .)
difference between "fine art photography" and "photography"?
- Thread starter sebastel
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 81
- Views 17K
well . . . Vincent is sitting right here on my porch and he says the same about your stuff !
(I'm trying to decide if that proves my point or doesn't .)
starless
Well-known
Well, there probably isn't a right or wrong answer here as for centuries philosophers have been trying to define what art is.
I love what Oscar Wilde wrote: "Art is quite useless."
I love what Oscar Wilde wrote: "Art is quite useless."
F
---f
Guest
Merriam-Webster defines it as:
The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...
The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...
Bill Clark
Veteran
Could a def be:
fine art = Photography people pay for?
Photography = can include "fine art" but mostly of products with no payment.
Dean Collins said, "Beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder."
Don't agree? Keep your day job!
fine art = Photography people pay for?
Photography = can include "fine art" but mostly of products with no payment.
Dean Collins said, "Beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder."
Don't agree? Keep your day job!
carpark
Established
That sums it up for me too.
To me labeling your photos as "fine art" means you are trying too hard to market your work. Just like Subway or Dominos pizza using "Artisanal" bread. It's a meaningless term
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
As this is the internet, everyone involved in this discussion is tall, slim, handsome and above all, absolutely correct.
Could someone remind me what the question was? 😀
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
the question was:
are you tall, slim, handsome and absolutely correct?
my answer is:
tell me what you would like to hear, then i'll say it, and then you can cite me.
Jamie123
Veteran
'Fine art' is certainly an expression that is aimed to convey the notion of quality and permanence when it comes to products such as papers and inks or prints. I'd be a bit careful, though, to equate the notion of a 'fine art print' with that of 'fine art photography'. The former is a loosely defined technical term (sort of like 'weatherproof' or 'shockproof') and relates to materials whereas the latter does not.
The funny thing about the term 'fine art photography' is that you probably won't find it on the websites of any of the photographers that are established in the art world. Whenever I see the term 'fine art photography' on a website it's usually written in some calligraphic font and there are often highly saturated (or contrasty bw) pictures of the grand canyon or equally original subject matters.
This is what I was thinking too... when I made the pretentiousness comment.
F
---f
Guest
maybe it all started with someone looking a painting of a nude lady by a guy named Art and and the observer commented "that's fine, Art!" and thru time it got taken out of context to mean nudes are fine art???
http://thatjeffskin.com/
http://thatjeffskin.com/
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Photography has many, many uses. Some of them artistic, like landscape photography, some purely functional, like product photography used in advertising. Some people do casual snapshots to remember cute things their kids did, some people use photography as part of scientific research. There are photographers who just do studio portraits and some who just photograph pets, and some who just photograph weddings.
The term "Fine Art Photography" is just a label for a type of photography, just like "Portrait Photography" or "Sports Photography". Most fine art photography is done purely for personal expression, but there is a lot of overlap, since over time photos made originally as other types of photography can come to be recognized as works of art as well.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Chris,
Are you sure that product photograph is 'purely functional'? Without at least a modicum of aesthetic appeal, why is anyone going to look at it?
Cheers,
R.
Jamie123
Veteran
I don't think 'Fine Art Photography' is a label (or genre) such as 'Portrait photography' or Sports Photography' unless you mean photographers who photograph fine art works (I know someone who does that). 'Fine art photography' seems to be more on the level of 'Advertising photography' or 'Editorial photography' as it refers to what context the photograph is used in, not what the photograph is of.
There's nothing inherently artistic about certain genres of photography like landscape photography or inherently non-artistic about genres like product photography. Landscape photography can be used in a commercial context (e.g. in order to sell real estate) just as product photography can be used in an artistic context.
When works from one context (like advertising) get re-contextualized (is that a word??) into a fine art setting it is usually because someone puts them there. Most often that someone is the photographer themself but sometims it's also a curator or an estate or even an appropriation artist (most infamously Richard Prince with the cowboy pictures).
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
I've been a photographer nearly my whole life and learned the basics at a summer program at the same School where I currenty teach photography, computer graphics and fine art foundations. i've exhibited work in Museums and galleries nearly every year since 1981. All the while, I ran my own graphic design and photography business. I made two kinds of work, what we used to call commercial and personal. Every photographer I knew did. All that said, I finally came to realize one day at 47 years old, that I had never really "art" until then. I never thought what I was doing before that was not art making, but when my ubique personal vision finally arrived, out of nowhere, I actually saw the difference. Everything I had done before then was just practice. When you are actually making "art," you know it. If you have any doubt, you're probably not. That doesn't mean others can't experience anything you do as "art," but that's about them, not you.
The "art world" can be viewed like horse racing. Horses are the art, jockeys are the artists, stable owners are the galleries, and oddsmakers and analists are the critics. In horseracing only the jockey has a direct impact on the horse's performnce. In the "art world," everybody after the artist exerts influence and pressure that would be patently illegal in horseracing. Hence the reason for the impression of corruption in the "art world."
Based on my experience making "fine art photography," I offer this: photography documents whatever we put in front of our camera, "art photgraphy" documents our unique personal vision of it.
Of course, a lot of what is presented as "fine art Photography" is actually emulation of the unique personal vision of others, art that looks like what art is supposed to look like, but you see that in every creative form. Photography is not alone in this. Success has emulation as a natural side effect. It's a ligitimate pursuit while you wait for your unique personal vision to arrive.
The attitude that calling the work you make "fine art photography" is somehow always pretentious, isn't very useful. At the very least, saying that you are a "fine art photographer" tells everyone your goal, your intent, how you would like the work tht you do to be appreciated and received. It shouldn't be a basis for criticism as some always seem to want to make it.
The "art world" can be viewed like horse racing. Horses are the art, jockeys are the artists, stable owners are the galleries, and oddsmakers and analists are the critics. In horseracing only the jockey has a direct impact on the horse's performnce. In the "art world," everybody after the artist exerts influence and pressure that would be patently illegal in horseracing. Hence the reason for the impression of corruption in the "art world."
Based on my experience making "fine art photography," I offer this: photography documents whatever we put in front of our camera, "art photgraphy" documents our unique personal vision of it.
Of course, a lot of what is presented as "fine art Photography" is actually emulation of the unique personal vision of others, art that looks like what art is supposed to look like, but you see that in every creative form. Photography is not alone in this. Success has emulation as a natural side effect. It's a ligitimate pursuit while you wait for your unique personal vision to arrive.
The attitude that calling the work you make "fine art photography" is somehow always pretentious, isn't very useful. At the very least, saying that you are a "fine art photographer" tells everyone your goal, your intent, how you would like the work tht you do to be appreciated and received. It shouldn't be a basis for criticism as some always seem to want to make it.
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
Sadly, jsrockit, you are probably right. Most "fine art" anything is emulation. That's how people learn things. It doesn't make sense to waste energy on negative thinking about it. I've been making digital collage work since 1995 and am acrually offended by the attention and money Gursky gets for what he does. I don't waste my time ranting about it, I'd rather just ignore him and continue to do what I have been doing. I really treasure my amature status, because it means that I only have to make the art that I am inspired to make and don't have to worry about what anyone else thinks.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Charlie,
Given the choice between you and Gursky, I know whose work I'd rather have on my walls. In fact I know, whose work I actually have on my walls. But once your work tops $1,000,000 a picture, my loyalty may be strained...
Cheers,
R.
Given the choice between you and Gursky, I know whose work I'd rather have on my walls. In fact I know, whose work I actually have on my walls. But once your work tops $1,000,000 a picture, my loyalty may be strained...
Cheers,
R.
Sparrow
Veteran
... are your walls large enough for Gursky? ... I always assumed it was a conceit of the commercial fine art dealers, who have the fine art galleries that sell fine art, em art ... I'm expecting the fist very fine art gallery or very fine art degree to be here any time 🙂
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
Thanks Roger,
Have you seen my Digital Tarot? I believe it is my master work. It's on my website. I took a bit of your advice and made all the fingers B&W. It made all the difference. Thank you. I made a few prototype decks on an inkjet printer, and though they are not as good as actual offset printed cards will look, they are nothing to be embarassed to share. I would love to send you a deck to see how you experience them. Email me an address where you would like me to send them.
give my best to Frances,
Charlie
Have you seen my Digital Tarot? I believe it is my master work. It's on my website. I took a bit of your advice and made all the fingers B&W. It made all the difference. Thank you. I made a few prototype decks on an inkjet printer, and though they are not as good as actual offset printed cards will look, they are nothing to be embarassed to share. I would love to send you a deck to see how you experience them. Email me an address where you would like me to send them.
give my best to Frances,
Charlie
Similar threads
