Fine art photography

It's all a numbers game.

It's all a numbers game.

John,
I can not help but feel that the tax man category is the least important of the subjective categories for the definition. I feel the simplest criteria for judging if an image is fine art is if it is desired by the observer enough to acquire it by any means available. Purchase from a gallery, a web site, pirated from the web, or cut out of a magazine, the number of times viewed on a site or reprints requested from an artist web site. Notice that where in the “old days” of representation, we use to wait for the catalog to be printed of the up coming exhibits, and then we had to hoof it to the gallery to see the image and the only way to acquire it was to buy it from the gallery. The old system limited the distribution and the access to a few influential buyers. The web has changed all that! All of my images on film or not are now digital, event the printing onto large scale stock is done digitally. I have not seen the inside of a dark room in 30 years but I still use all those techniques in processing the images, now it is done on a computer screen. If you take a look at my Avatar you will notice two faces, my wife and mine. That image was created “the old school “way, a pre planed double exposure. We were in a restaurant the year was 1978, I was taking some pictures of her with a twin lens reflex, on the last picture I got the idea of switching seats with her and reset the shutter and she took this shot. We have reprinted it and given it to friends and family that have seen it hanging in our home and requested a copy. This picture and a few others makes me a fine artist.

There are many ways to create fine art among then, pre planed, accidental, incidental and dumb luck. There are more, these in my opinion are the most likely way great images are created. My avatar used up two of those, planning and dumb luck. As a journalist I have two issues tugging at me, on one hand I want to create an illustration that is a work of art, on the other hand is the editor who just wants a clear printable image, trust me this is an issue. Sometimes I will have a staff photographer at the event where he is shooting literally 100 shots to my one. Digital photography has expanded the dumb luck school of shooting. A final thought, my father was an unusual person to say the least, besides being a photographer he had PhD’s in Science Physics and mathematics, he said to me in 1968, “The world is a numbers game as the population increases it tilts the odds towards having more great minds in the world. If China ever gets over this Communist thing the world is theirs”.

Regards Miguel
 
Miguel,

I was not trying to imply that the "tax-man" suggestion was the most important, but rather the opposite, but if I can remember the OP, it had something to do with gainfully producing work. I think it is much more personal and difficult, and for me it has much to do with process in addition to production.

As far as chance favoring the prepared mind and the role of luck, some would argue that art should be intensional, however IMO, good luck is preferred to bad. As I rarely have complete control in the subjects I commonly choose, a suitable moment and my readiness and ability may or may not all coincide.

If you are a painter, you can choose to add or leave something out, with photography, it can be an existing instant you are dealing with, and you do not have that degree of choice.

I am not much in favor of the "spray and pray" crowd, and not to insult anyone's technique, I cannot imagine shooting thousands of digital images of, for example, an event such as a wedding, merely because it is technically possible. Is it a wedding or a photo op, and are there really a thousand images there to be recorded or ten back ups of every shot?

I did see something I wanted once in Paris and used pretty much a whole roll of 15 in about 20 minutes as the situation progressed a bit.

I had the time and I was carrying my Fuji folder for just such an occasion with the result of several images printed. I was also aware the situation very well might evaporate and perhaps only would record a few frames. I established my position and then worked on slight variations, but the scene was there when I first looked.

I have known several people who I believe can reliably shoot a roll on almost any given day and create several good images. Perhaps they are more the artist for it.

Some days I can, but perhaps not tomorrow. I just do not always see good images, but perhaps I need to look more carefully, or change my location.

After many years am not so sure I am going to soon join the ranks of those people who just get something special at will, but if I get an image that I (in your words, would buy) on any given day, I certainly will take what I can get.

I really remember the days I get several good images, and am not so sure as to what separates those days from the not so good days.

I also think that while some images come across quite well on a computer screen, some quite good ones do not, and while there is a huge difference in what a fine print looks like in person, I also wonder how many among the population have seen a fine print first hand, and how many have purchased or otherwise acquired such a print.

Which may drag in the idea of elitist in terms of art and the population it is intended to reach,

So, there will always be some difficulty, and it may well be part of its nature, in defining such a personal quest.

I must have been an artist, I have had three prints stolen. ;-)

Regards, John
 
Last edited:
Pitxu said:
And then hang the bean can on the wall, Warhol ?


View attachment 63813

😀
Click to expand...

OT.. our Heinz bean cans have red lablels, does that mean the Canadian ones are for Republicans and French Heinz beans with blue labels are for Democrats?

BTW : I'm amazed this thread has any legs left. I may just start one on "the number of angels that can dance on the top of a 135 film cannister" ;D
 
jan normandale said:
OT.. our Heinz bean cans have red lablels, does that mean the Canadian ones are for Republicans and French Heinz beans with blue labels are for Democrats?

BTW : I'm amazed this thread has any legs left. I may just start one on "the number of angels that can dance on the top of a 135 film cannister" ;D
Click to expand...


Would that be a Leica cartridge? ;-)
 
jan normandale said:
BTW : I'm amazed this thread has any legs left. I may just start one on "the number of angels that can dance on the top of a 135 film cannister" ;D
Click to expand...

That "angels dancing on pin heads" riddle has an answer, BTW. It used to be popular way, way, way back. The Catholic Church historically regarded dancing as sinful (albeit mildly) and angels don't have free will. Therefore, they are incapable of sin and can't dance. The pinhead is just there to confuse the issue.
 
FallisPhoto said:
That "angels dancing on pin heads" riddle has an answer, BTW. It used to be popular way, way, way back. The Catholic Church historically regarded dancing as sinful (albeit mildly) and angels don't have free will. Therefore, they are incapable of sin and can't dance. The pinhead is just there to confuse the issue.
Click to expand...

Yes but is dance art?? that’s what I want to know!! and what about other types of performance?
 
It is all Art but few are the Masters of fine Art.

It is all Art but few are the Masters of fine Art.

FallisPhoto said:
Depends on the dance, I guess.
Click to expand...

Dancing as a sin was thought up by someone in power that could not dance! Writing was for a long time the tenant of only the cleric. I confess I am a sinner! On many levels. Living in the “South” I have learned that absolution is a way of life.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arts

Just yesterday my wife and I were discussing the definition of the arts. Without question dancing is an art, it is a form of expression and entertainment that is learned and has its own progression of skills and levels. If you take Webster’s definition any skill that is learned and applied with skills beyond the abilities of most is art. Back to the original thread, Fine Art is the epitome of the particular art skill set. A way of defining the level of proficiency for skill sets was needed, hence we ended up with the Masters category.
http://www.britannica.com/bps/search?query=master&source=MWTEXT#search=tab~TOPICS,term~master
:bang:
 
Migracer said:
Dancing as a sin was thought up by someone in power that could not dance! Writing was for a long time the tenant of only the cleric. I confess I am a sinner! On many levels. Living in the “South” I have learned that absolution is a way of life.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arts

Just yesterday my wife and I were discussing the definition of the arts. Without question dancing is an art, it is a form of expression and entertainment that is learned and has its own progression of skills and levels. If you take Webster’s definition any skill that is learned and applied with skills beyond the abilities of most is art. Back to the original thread, Fine Art is the epitome of the particular art skill set. A way of defining the level of proficiency for skill sets was needed, hence we ended up with the Masters category.
http://www.britannica.com/bps/search?query=master&source=MWTEXT#search=tab~TOPICS,term~master
:bang:
Click to expand...

Yes, but it can also simply be exercise, so it depends on the dance and the dancer.
 
>>Dancing as a sin was thought up by someone in power that could not dance!<<

Perhaps if you do it right it is sinning. ;-)

Is it Dated a couple of girls from a Kentucky college where dancing was not permitted, I think they snuck off and danced a few times in the bushes.

Met a Professor from there who was escorting a group to Europe, some sin, no dancing in the group.

Great guy.

J
 
We are all sinners

We are all sinners

Dated a couple of girls from a Kentucky college where dancing was not permitted, I think they snuck off and danced a few times in the bushes.

J[/QUOTE]

John
When photography reached the first remote people that were not aware pf this technology, somehow the act of taking a picture was interpreted into taking the subjects’ soul. I suspect that this was thought of by someone wanting to exert control. Ah! The Art of manipulation.. Only the pure leave unscathed. But who determines purity? Are the only pure images we take the ones we do not try to enhance in the dark room or with the computer? Or is art the whole package, the end justifies the means. One of the worst things in our world is the trying to impose restrictions on each other.
 
Migracer said:
Dated a couple of girls from a Kentucky college where dancing was not permitted, I think they snuck off and danced a few times in the bushes.

J
Click to expand...

John
When photography reached the first remote people that were not aware pf this technology, somehow the act of taking a picture was interpreted into taking the subjects’ soul. I suspect that this was thought of by someone wanting to exert control. Ah! The Art of manipulation.. Only the pure leave unscathed. But who determines purity? Are the only pure images we take the ones we do not try to enhance in the dark room or with the computer? Or is art the whole package, the end justifies the means. One of the worst things in our world is the trying to impose restrictions on each other.[/QUOTE]

Actually restrictions on making images go back long before photography in the cultures that believe that. Many such cultures are hardly remote (The Amish, for example oppose photography based on the second commandment, not because they think it takes the soul, and they also oppose being drawn or painted). Most cultures that have taboos against photography also have similar beliefs about all forms of representational art depicting people. Islam, on the other hand, has always looked down on painting and drawing people (notice that mosques never have images of God, Mohammed, or other religious figures.....only abstract art and calligraphy), yet Islam doesn't seem to have ever opposed photography. I have several books of early photos of the middle East (19th century), and many of the photos were made by Muslims.

Why is putting restrictions on people one of the worst things in the world? Should we decriminalize murder? That is a big restriction on people. Restrictions (laws) exist in most cases for good reason, because people are basically animals and will act as such if given the freedom to do so. The important thing is to restrict harmful acts without taking away freedom.
 
Christopher

One of the most amazing by products of joining RFF is discovering the intellect of the membership. I so enjoy the various discussions from such a variety of member backgrounds and opinions. I have met people from all over the world, of every religious, geopolitical, and race, all bound together by the enjoyment of photography.

As a consequence of joining RFF, I dusted off my rangefinder cameras and started using them again, this time with 30 years of additional experience from when I put them in the display case. I have gone from being a chronicler back to my love of the art of photography.

This particular thread has spurred me to push and experiment at every turn. My newest posting in the Gallery is from my latest attempt to paint with a camera and film, I used 4 cameras, Panasonic digital, Kodak RF 35, Canon Elan SLR, Canon 60 point and shoot. I hand held all the shots, purposely blurred some, my favorites are the pictures from the 1946 Kodak ragefinder. I will post those today as soon as the system allows me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom