the term: Fine Art

FrankS

FrankS

Registered User
Local time
5:04 PM
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
19,348
I'm not sure why some people have difficulty with this term. Doesn't it simply differentiate artwork that is motivated purely by self-expression of the artist, from commercial art which is commissioned or conceived for specific and practical purposes such as portrait, wedding, advertising, editorial, photojournalism, etc? That's how I see it anyway. Sure there may be instances where the lines are blurred, but for purposes of definition/understanding, this works for me.

What think you?
 
It's the term "fine". I know that adjective is applied to make the distinction from commercial art, but the word "fine" also has implications of "goodness" or "quality". It is up to the viewer/critic/buyer of the art to determine if it is "fine". I prefer the term "art", without the distinction.

Let someone else call it fine if they find it so. But coming from the artist, it seems ... pretentious.
 
Yes, that should be it: real art... But sometimes I see fine art photographers tend more to a superficial, light approach to their images... Fine art photographers make me think of "beautiful photographs", autumn leaves in color, flowers in a delicate composition, soft focus filter wedding photographs, children in cute situations, conservative nudes... Things that people who don't like (or know about) real art consider artistic and hang in their living room so their visits think they have nice decoration... But of course there are real art fine art photographers too... I also think fine art photographers include a lot of beginners lacking technical skills apart from art and even taste, and the term has another meaning too: "I deserve your money, trust me"... Just my opinion... I prefer being called photographer. For others calling themselves fine art photographers there's a commercial reason too, it means "I sell real black and white prints".

Cheers,

Juan
 
Chris101 said:
It's the term "fine". I know that adjective is applied to make the distinction from commercial art, but the word "fine" also has implications of "goodness" or "quality". It is up to the viewer/critic/buyer of the art to determine if it is "fine". I prefer the term "art", without the distinction.

Let someone else call it fine if they find it so. But coming from the artist, it seems ... pretentious.
Click to expand...

But that is not the meaning of the word "fine" in this term. Many words have more than one meaning even when used alone, let alone in a multi-word term.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Yes, that should be it: real art... But sometimes I see fine art photographers tend more to a superficial, light approach to their images... Fine art photographers make me think of "beautiful photographs", autumn leaves in color, flowers in a delicate composition, soft focus filter wedding photographs, children in cute situations, conservative nudes... Things that people who don't like (or know about) real art consider artistic and hang in their living room so their visits think they have nice decoration... But of course there are real art fine art photographers too... I also think fine art photographers include a lot of beginners lacking technical skills apart from art and even taste, and the term has another meaning too: "I deserve your money, trust me"... Just my opinion... I prefer being called photographer. For others calling themselves fine art photographers there's a commercial reason too, it means "I sell real black and white prints".

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

I disagree, Juan. There was this fine art photographer who photographed corpses and dissections, which is most definitely not "light and superficial."
 
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Frank,

Some people just don't like art, at all, and that is their problem with "Fine Art Photography".
Click to expand...

Chris,

I consider your photography and your personality have true artistic inclinations, and I enjoy both your writing and your images... You might have met some other people calling themselves fine art photographers and doing terrible things, though...

Cheers,

Juan
 
FrankS said:
I disagree, Juan. There was this fine art photographer who photographed corpses and disections, which is most definitely not "light and superficial."
Click to expand...

I think we agree, Frank... I said "...of course there are real art fine art photographers too..."

Cheers,

Juan
 
Artisan v. Artist

Artisan v. Artist

My father studied painting and photography at California college of Arts and Crafts in the 30's. I received my masters in painting and photography in 1970 and many of my professors were also old school, copying the masters and drawing from busts was part of beginning art training. I can paint like Norman Rockwell (see www.MrPythagoras.com), and Weston is still God. However, I am not stuck in the past and I appreciate modern art.

The point of this is that sculpture, painting, theater, and dance are arts. Photography, ceramics, weaving, cabinetry are crafts.

At my father's death I don't think that my old man would ever call Ansel Adams (whom he greatly admired) an artist, but he was an artisan. Now you folks may not see any difference between the two but it's apples and oranges to me.
 
Oh Two said:
My father studied painting and photography at California college of Arts and Crafts in the 30's. I received my masters in painting and photography in 1970 and many of my professors were also old school, copying the masters and drawing from busts was part of beginning art training. I can paint like Norman Rockwell (see www.MrPythagoras.com), and Weston is still God. However, I am not stuck in the past and I appreciate modern art.

The point of this is that sculpture, painting, theater, and dance are arts. Photography, ceramics, weaving, cabinetry are crafts.

At my father's death I don't think that my old man would ever call Ansel Adams (whom he greatly admired) an artist, but he was an artisan. Now you folks may not see any difference between the two but it's apples and oranges to me.
Click to expand...

That attitude died in the 1930s too. I've never seen someone with an education in the arts, in my lifetime, try to argue that photography, ceramics, and weaving were not fine art (there are non-art uses for these things too, but that's true of drawing and painting as well). I lived in Santa Fe several years and the galleries there displayed photography, tapestries, and ceramics right alongside paintings, sculptures, and drawings with no distinctions between them. That's the state of fine art today.
 
Surely it is helpful when marketing oneself, to specify an area of strength? If someone says just photographer or worse yet, just artist, then they could be all sorts with very different abilities.
 
Last edited:
FrankS said:
But that is not the meaning of the word "fine" in this term. Many words have more than one meaning even when used alone, let alone in a multi-word term.
Click to expand...

That's fine. Other's might like to use the term. It is actually too readily used to set one's art above though. So I do not use the term in reference to my own work. I see it most often used when someone is hawking fine art prints from a booth at an art fair. Perhaps a better term would be "fair art".
 
FrankS said:
I disagree, Juan. There was this fine art photographer who photographed corpses and dissections, which is most definitely not "light and superficial."
Click to expand...

I doubt that photographer, and I believe I know who you are talking about, called his work "Fine Art Photography." I tend to agree with Juan's description. The rest is just considered Art in general. Or there's always wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art_photography
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom