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

[sebastel]

dear fellas,

as a nonnative english speaker, i sometimes have problems with the fine tuning of semantics. and that's why i trustfully turn to you now.
every once in a while, when browsing the final frontiers of the world wild web, i encounter pages classifying themselves as dedicated to "fine art photography". when looking at the pictures exposed there, i oh so often fail to understand what differentiates them from "photography" without the "fine art".

now, i came to the conclusion, that i obviously do not understand the term "fine art photography". what kind of categorization is this? is it a commercial thing? or ... well, i am confused now.

your ideas and opinions will be welcome to enlighten this clueless mind.

cheers,
sebastian

p.s.: this is not supposed to be a different way of asking "can photography be art?"
p.p.s.: i even looked up merriam-webster, but i could not make sense of it in this context.

 

[thegman]

I don't believe there is any difference, other than what the photographer wants to put across. The only difference I think is that a wedding/commercial photographer is unlikely to call his/her work "fine art".

If you were to set up a web site, selling your street shots, you could call it fine art if you wanted to, or not, neither is wrong. If it's your intention to make art, then it's fine art I guess.

 

[Bobfrance]

I think the Wiki entry sums it up fairly well.

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

Fine art photography refers to photographs that are created to fulfill the creative vision of the artist. Fine art photography stands in contrast to photojournalism and commercial photography. Photojournalism provides visual support for stories, mainly in the print media. Fine art photography is created primarily as an expression of the artist’s vision, but has also been important in advancing certain causes. The work of Ansel Adams in Yosemite and Yellowstone provides an example. Adams is one of the most widely recognized fine art photographers of the 20th century, and was an avid promoter of conservation. While his primary focus was on photography as art, his work raised public awareness of the beauty of the Sierra Nevada and helped to build political support for their protection.

Basically the difference lies in the 'intent' This is why a pile of bricks or a urinal can still be 'Art'

Let the arguments begin! 🙂

Bob.

 

[Pherdinand]

i look at it from a very practical angle:
If a photo is made on order, for a certain purpose, it is not "fine art". E.g., forensic shots are not "fine art photography", neither wedding shots ordered by an arranged photographer.
If a photo is made with no particular purpose in mind, but does not make the viewer feel like, buying it and using it as decoration/illustration, it is also not fine art. E.g. my holiday shots are not fine art, neither the average RFF user's average cat shot.

If, however, a photo is found by you somewhere and you feel like you want to buy it for decoration or illustration purpose, it is a good indication that it is "fine art photography".

There are of course, exceptions and overlaps. Like, a portrait can be made on order but still be "fine art photography".

In short, if an photo is interesting for people NOT involved in the creation or subject matter, it is 'fine art photography".

 

[Murchu]

^ Bob has it.

Art for art's sake. Images with no other purpose than to fill an esthétique vision of the artist.

Very succinctly put. That sums it up in a nutshell, for my understanding of fine art photography.

 

[lynnb]

I'll agree with Bob, and additionally, fine art photography often involves high quality production and materials. A cheap machine-printed postcard size photo from K-Mart would not normally be described as fine art. Fine art prints are usually made using either traditional silver-based darkroom techniques or as quality inkjet prints using archival grade materials. Buyers would not expect a fine art print to fade within a short time.

There's exceptions to every rule - fine art polaroids for example, which require careful storage to avoid fading. The artist David Hockney, photographer Andre Ketesz and film maker/photographer Tarkovsky made fine art works using polaroids - to name just a few.

 

[sebastel]

hm, ok, that really helps - so far.
but allow one more question - when art is for art's sake, why the intent to sell it? in that case, it's for "commercial $ake".

well, maybe this is a "european misunderstanding": if it is commercial, it can't be art.

and don't forget to have a nice weekend ..
s.

 

[Bobfrance]

Even starving artists have to eat. 😉

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I would say that if (1) they think they can sell it and (2) there's a famous name to put on it then it's fine art photography...

And the materials used and the very high price enhances the value!

You may have noticed that people will sooner pay a high price for commercial software than use free software...

Regards, David

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I think photography refers to reality and to what we feel being alive, from love to fear.

And to me the term art -in contrast to other manual works- refers to a work where apart from the obvious or literal meaning (important and beautiful too...) there's another story, or two... And those oblique stories are there for some people... Photography is art sometimes, but that requires in my opinion a certain depth in an image, a metaphor... Anyway, I enjoy a good photograph (one single story) just as much as an art photograph, and I'd prefer to talk just about photography, because making art can't be an objective, but a necessity that for moments wins over ourselves and we can't help it, but that's just as cool as making in other moment a photograph that's simple and literal, and that includes all our feelings too...

The thing about fine art photography -with capital letters sometimes- is that while it was a very exclusive term decades ago, now it's what lots of students or mediocre photographers use as public name, and the real art photography, comes from a minority.

Fine art photography refers (again just in my opinion) to a commercial activity the photographer or a company (gallery) is/are interested in, so they try to show they cared about the frame, they prefer big sizes, and no matter if the image was born with colors or not, born in silver or not, and no matter if the photograph is good or not, it is called fine art photography. The thing is those images are not fine and not art, so that's why I feel those words are far away from photographs that are art. They talk more about money and necessity.

Fine art photography is a better description for works like those of Ansel Adams, indeed paintings more than photographs. Personally I see no art in those works, but manual techniques... No art from the point of view of plurality of meanings and possible readings... His prints can be sold as fine art photography, but his negatives are not art the way other photographers' negatives are art from the moment of hitting the shutter...

Fine art photography talks to me about fine framing and fine printing and fine price no matter if the photograph is nothing.

There are exceptions... But every single one of those 12 million fine art photographers can't be the exception...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[jsrockit]

I've always thought it came down to pretentiousness.

 

[jsrockit]

Fine art photography is a better description for works like those of Ansel Adams, indeed paintings more than photographs. Personally I see no art in those works, but manual techniques... No art from the point of view of plurality of meanings and possible readings... His prints can be sold as fine art photography, but his negatives are not art the way other photographers' negatives are art from the moment of hitting the shutter...

You were a bit rough on the bearded guy... we should all be so lucky to have as much impact on photography as AA.

 

[stratcat]

You were a bit rough on the bearded guy... we should all be so lucky to have as much impact on photography as AA.

That's the problem with this kind of discussions. Instead of discussing the philosophical aspects of "what is art?", you start getting crude disqualifications or blind worship: "so-and-so is NOT art", "so-and-so is the epithome of art"...

 

[jsrockit]

The guy had an ego..

Not many can say they don't have an ego. 🙂

 

[Bobfrance]

Some are bigger than others.. some are huge.

A super ego? 😉

 

[starless]

I always chuckle when I come across someone who claims to produce "fine art photojournalism" or "fine art commercial/wedding" or even "fine art documentary" photography.

 

[dave lackey]

dear fellas,

as a nonnative english speaker, i sometimes have problems with the fine tuning of semantics. and that's why i trustfully turn to you now.
every once in a while, when browsing the final frontiers of the world wild web, i encounter pages classifying themselves as dedicated to "fine art photography". when looking at the pictures exposed there, i oh so often fail to understand what differentiates them from "photography" without the "fine art".

now, i came to the conclusion, that i obviously do not understand the term "fine art photography". what kind of categorization is this? is it a commercial thing? or ... well, i am confused now.

your ideas and opinions will be welcome to enlighten this clueless mind.

cheers,
sebastian

p.s.: this is not supposed to be a different way of asking "can photography be art?"
p.p.s.: i even looked up merriam-webster, but i could not make sense of it in this context.

You are not clueless...it is all marketing.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? It is whatever one says it is...

Don't sweat it...it is what it is and nothing more, nothing less.:angel:

 

[kingqueenknave]

My senior picture from high school is an example of a "fine art photograph." The picture my mother took of the fine art photographer taking my picture is a "photograph."

 

[gns]

I don't think your confusion has anything to do with your grasp of English.

The term "Fine Art Photography" is just a label which has no official meaning so people just use it however they wish.

The term has always seemed silly to me for its emphasis on "Fine". Shouldn't simply "Art Photography" do? Maybe it's due to our academic system in the U.S. which bestows a Bachelor or Masters of "Art" to sociologists or historians, so it must give a bachelor or masters of "Fine Arts" to artists. However, people I know who have BFA and MFA degrees seem happy to call themselves artists and don't use the "Fine".

Gary

 

[starless]

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