Orthogonal
Established
It's irrelevant. The only real question is this: is it any good?
Whether or not something is or is not art - why should that change how we look at it anyway? In some languages our concept of art doesn't even exist, and even in English the definition has changed dramatically over the centuries (and decades!). Ideally, anything should ideally be judged independently of the categories we box them into.
Whether or not something is or is not art - why should that change how we look at it anyway? In some languages our concept of art doesn't even exist, and even in English the definition has changed dramatically over the centuries (and decades!). Ideally, anything should ideally be judged independently of the categories we box them into.
giganova
Well-known
markjwyatt
Well-known
...
(Yes - this photo!)
It definitely took some balls to shoot that photo! Looks like a photography racket. Did some use flash?
lynnb
Veteran
I think the term fine art was introduced to convince curators - and potential buyers - that photography was an equal to the established visual art of painting, and therefore worthy of higher prices that go with collectables and investments. Photography initially struggled to gain acceptance as an art form, as Giganova's wikipedia link mentions.
At the consumer level, I notice practitioners of cheesy overcooked landscape photography (edit: and clichéd portraiture) marketing their work as fine art to the masses in order to convince them that a sow's ear is actually a silk purse, and therefore worth a premium. I have seen such pictures emerge in op shops with more realistic prices.
As to street photography, same as in other fields... if I think it's art, it's art. I find the term Fine Art to be overworked to the point of appearing a little pretentious, and best avoided. Unless someone paid me to think otherwise
At the consumer level, I notice practitioners of cheesy overcooked landscape photography (edit: and clichéd portraiture) marketing their work as fine art to the masses in order to convince them that a sow's ear is actually a silk purse, and therefore worth a premium. I have seen such pictures emerge in op shops with more realistic prices.
As to street photography, same as in other fields... if I think it's art, it's art. I find the term Fine Art to be overworked to the point of appearing a little pretentious, and best avoided. Unless someone paid me to think otherwise
pyeh
Member of good standing
Now you're scraping the bottom of the barrel with those puns!
peterm1
Veteran
BTW I was reminded by a timely post on instagram that "pictorialism" was originally (around late 19th C early 20th C) designated that way to try to get photography recognised as a legitimate art that was comparable with painting. Pictorialism used softer focus to achieve a painterly effect. Some of Edward Steichen's photos were famously of this sort. If you look at the Steichen photo below it has some quite distinct similarities to paintings by the American artist Whistler - especially his series called "nocturnes" which naturally given the name were paintings of night scenes
My point is using the designation "fine art" is much the same sort of thing - its about using labelling to make an artist's photography more saleable. But in the case of pictorialism it undeniably had a distinct (and I would argue beautiful) style - much more so than "fine art" photography which can be almost anything. And I think that is the key distinction which tells you there is a lot of hype in that name. Having said this I would not mind well executed "pictorial" imagery being called "fine art".
Steichen's Photo of the NY Flatiron.
Whistler - The Thames at Battersea
And a Portrait by Julia Margaret Cameron
My point is using the designation "fine art" is much the same sort of thing - its about using labelling to make an artist's photography more saleable. But in the case of pictorialism it undeniably had a distinct (and I would argue beautiful) style - much more so than "fine art" photography which can be almost anything. And I think that is the key distinction which tells you there is a lot of hype in that name. Having said this I would not mind well executed "pictorial" imagery being called "fine art".
Steichen's Photo of the NY Flatiron.
Whistler - The Thames at Battersea
And a Portrait by Julia Margaret Cameron
I find it interesting that none of the major museums in the world seem to use the term "fine art" when describing their collections.
peterm1
Veteran
I think that reinforces what a number of people are saying - the term "fine art" is basically a commercial term - a marketing slogan if you will.
In that sense it is nothing more than words that are in the same league as:
DUNKIN DONUTS: “AMERICA RUNS ON DUNKIN”
MCDONALD’S: “I’M LOVING IT”
SUBWAY: “EAT FRESH.”
KFC: “IT’S FINGER LICKIN’ GOOD.”WAL-MART: “SAVE MONEY, LIVE BETTER.”
DISNEYLAND: “THE HAPPIEST PLACE ON EARTH.”
DE BEERS: “A DIAMOND IS FOREVER.”
GILLETTE: “THE BEST A MAN CAN GET.”
Ewwwwww - sounds kind of tawdry.
aizan
Veteran
Street photography has basically become the abstract expressionism of photography: dominated by men, overlooks women out of habit, gushes about the singular touch of the artist (aka sensitivity to the decisive moment, light, etc.), feigns universality (and neutrality/apoliticalness) and glosses over political and social issues.
In short, I mostly dislike what it has become and look toward documentary photography for meaningful contemporary work.
In short, I mostly dislike what it has become and look toward documentary photography for meaningful contemporary work.
JohnBeeching
Well-known
I prefer "Crude fart snaps" to "Fine art photography", the latter is just pretentious.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Or what ever BS line you can come up with to sell your pix is fair game. I've always thought of Fine Art Photography as pictures that you would like to see on your wall. I suppose there are people who would hang that Tennis Girl shot.