the term: Fine Art

Chris101 said:
Chris, it's not the word "art" that causes the disconnect, it's the word "fine". Fine suggests a judgement call. To create a photograph and label it "fine art" even before it has a chance to be criticized or appreciated, seems kinda "cocky" in many people's minds. It's more neutral to say that a particular photograph or series was created as art, but to say "fine art" appears to be demanding respect - where none may be due.

Now for workers in the field such as yourself, if using the term makes for more and more lucrative sales, then more power to you. But a term of commerce is different than a term that has meaning in a critical discussion.
Click to expand...

Chris, its not just a marketing term. You're trying to deconstruct a very old term that, whether you like it or not, is the label for photography done as art. It doesn't require respect, you are free to judge each artist and his/her work on its artistic merits.

What you people are doing in trying to discredit this term is simple anti-intellectualism. Some people simply refuse to accept that photography can be art and others refuse to accept that there is even such a thing as art in any media or form.

Like it or not, art historians, curators, artists, collectors, and museums will continue to use the term 'fine art' for any photography done as art (including good photographs as well as crappy ones that make it into museums and galleries or get accepted by historians as art), because photographs can be works of art and that is simply never going to change no matter how much you hate it. This debate was settled a century ago. Sorry, but that's the historical fact. There will also always be work that some people think is good and others think is crap that is accepted by the art world and academic historians as fine art. That's not gonna change either.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Of course most photography isn't art, that's why we have the terms like fine art, commercial, wedding & portrait, snapshots, etc to distinguish between the different types of photographs and motives for making them. I'm at a loss to understand why you don't get that, especially when you admit that you understand that some photography is art and some is not.
Click to expand...


If one need to label the photo "fine art" then perhaps the photo does not stand on its own. The viewer can/should make that detrmination.

The title "Fine Art" again seems to me to be a way to make sure the viewer KNOWS this is ART and not some sort of regular, everyday photo. It seems a very good sales tool and I suport that but I would never think it defines a "style" of photography.

Can commercial photography be art? Of course it can as can any other type of photography. Is a portrait art? Maybe..maybe not. Does the photographers intention have anything to do with the relative "artness" of a photo? I dont think so. A photographers skills, experience and knowledge can help them produce an image yet that image is not automatically art.

This is a rather roundabout discussion. If it increases sales or strokes ones ego to title themselves a "fine art photographer" then go for it.

I shall now title myself the " Royal Sultan of South West Atlanta" and see how it draws customers to my business...it does make me feel good to be a Sultan 🙂
 
atlcruiser said:
I shall now title myself the " Royal Sultan of South West Atlanta" and see how it draws customers to my business...it does make me feel good to be a Sultan 🙂
Click to expand...

It won't bring you business, it'll just make you look like a kook. Why? Because unlike the "fine art" label, which is universally accepted worldwide, you're made up title is accepted by no one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If a Mapplethorpe negative is scanned and digitally grayscale printed on common color paper, that's not considered a fine art print, even though the original image is considered fine art photography.

The original term is related to high quality B&W fiber paper printing. Then it became whatever... An amazing Penn platinum print, a fiber paper print of a blurry Capa war negative, careful wet color printing from 8x10, relaxed digital color shooting and printing by anyone considered an artist by others or him/herself... It's all mixed up long ago... No doubt the word has a commercial meaning, more than a content or final output one, and it gathers all kinds of photographers and styles, and can show great care for IQ and technical skills, or avant-garde attitudes against any IQ... As in art, a photograph is a fine art photograph anytime someone wants to believe it, and any photographer can be described as a fine art photographer or not depending on who's talking.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
It won't bring you business, it'll just make you look like a kook. Why? Because unlike the "fine art" label, which is universally accepted worldwide, you're made up title is accepted by no one.
Click to expand...


I would be no more or less a kook than some wanna be photographer who titles themselves a "fine art photographer."

Again, this is an easy title to put upon oneself. It is not an easy title to be given by others.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Yep. Just like commercial photography, medical and scientific photography, and family snapshot photography. This stuff's not that hard to understand.
Click to expand...

Well maybe I'm not that bright, however,it seems to me that there is perhaps a difference between a 'fine art' photograph and the other categories that you mention, which can normally be discerned by reference to the photograph itself. For example, a medical photograph will often be of a part of the human body while a family snapshot will be of a family. In other words, I'll usually be able to figure out what kind of photograph it is without being told. On the other hand, how am I to tell whether a photograph is a 'fine art photograph' unless I first understand the photographer's intention?
 
atlcruiser said:
I guess i was not clear. I see no difference in fine vs jsut plain old art. It is all in the eye of the beholder or the check writer!

My point, as vague as it might have been, was a deep seated irritation with all these folks who call themselves "fine art photographers." Get over yourself!

A photographer or any artist may or may not turn out what can be generally accepted as art. A museum might lable that product as fine art to differentiate it from craft (an argument in of itself) 🙂

An educated viewer might agree it is art or might not see it as art. Neither matters if the person who crates it considers it art.

To lable oneself a "fine art photographer" to me, is akin to calling myself a "successful business owner" to the public.

I run a business, it is successful therfore I already am a successful business owner; no need to blow my horn or educate my audience. My work speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

My point exactly. That is your personal lexicon. I am just as irritated by the self-use of the term artist, but I realize that it is my personal lexicon (influenced by personal experiences) that is causing this. I have to accept that self-use of the term artist is accepted by not only the majority of our society, but by learned experts in the field.

For me, the term fine art photographer is just a descriptor of what one does, just as commercial photographer, real estate photographer, medical photographer forensic photographer, portrait photographer, celebrity photographer, wedding photographer, newspaper photographer, etc. In this instance my personal lexicon is more in sync with w2hat is generally accepted by society and experts in the field.

I don't think there is anything more that I can add to this discussion, nor do I feel the desire to.
 
Last edited:
You are all 100% correct....this is my opinion....as valid or invalid as any other.

The only 100% valid/true thing I know reguarding all of this is that:

1. I am not nor will I ever be a fine art photographer


2. My opinion; the term seems to be applied almost at random.

3. My points were not explained well be me.

4. I am not a professional photographer

5. I cant spell

thank you
drive through
 
self.gif


Now that we've drifted to skin and odd photos, here's a self-portrait done without a camera. All done in daylight. Pressed small sheet film to face, developed in dektol, contact printed on POP.

I make no claim to art.
 
My father was a house painter and later dabbled in farming. It was good for me as I was easily able to pay my way through university by working for/with him.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Chris, its not just a marketing term. ...
What you people are doing in trying to discredit this term is simple anti-intellectualism. Some people simply refuse to accept that photography can be art and others refuse to accept that there is even such a thing as art in any media or form.
...
Click to expand...

Really?

First off "fine art" is a marketing term - read through the last two pages of comments. This point is repeated over and over. Apparently it is often used as an adjective without meaning, as "fine art" is the same as "art". Ok, then drop the fine.

And I don't know who you are referring to as "you people". Anti-intellectualism? Your arguments about people refusing to accept photography as art attack a fine straw man. An anti-intellectual activity if ever there was one.
 
My understanding was always that 'fine art' was in contradistinction to 'applied art', but that the distinction is by no means clear cut. Even 'decoration' (generally viewed as a very low form of applied art) can turn into 'fine art' if it's well enough done: consider a good baroque altar, or a carved Welsh love-spoon (which is folk art as well).

Like many others, I'm not always happy with the way that 'fine art' is sometimes used as an excuse. "You don't understand it? That's because it's Fine Art, not for ignorant peasants like you." I fully take Fred's point that 'fine' is NOT an indication of quality, and that fine art can be good, bad or indifferent, but it can also be code for 'unable to sell anything'.

As for someone who says, "I am an artist" I am generally more comfortable with someone who says "I am a painter" or "I am a sculptor" or "I am a musician" or "I am a photographer," because relatively few artists are good in more than one field. Even then, 'relatively few' is still quite a lot in absolute numbers. If someone says "I am an artist" I generally try to go behind the broad term by asking ""What field?" or ""What are your favourite media," or something similar. I'd say thev answers are split about evenly between those who are genuinely multi-talented (though seldom multi-geniused); those who would do better to define themselves more closely; and those who are complete twerps. Of course if I've already formed the opnion that they're a complete twerp, I won't normally bother to pursue the conversation that far.

I've never actually met anyone who would say, "I am a Fine Artist" because 'fine' is sort of taken for granted if you say "artist". Otherwise, in the applied arts, you'd be more likely to say "I'm a wood carver" or "I'm a painter" or indeed "I'm a photographer", and let someone else decide if your work is Fine, Applied or A Label For A Prat.

Sure, someone like Chris may then be asked if they do weddings, but it's always open to them to say, amiably, "I'm not really that sort of photographer."

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Nice to meet you Roger

Nice to meet you Roger

I am a Fine Art Photographer.

That means I take photos of fine art, and, my photos are fine art.

It clearly explains to someone that I'm not a wedding or events photographer, journalist, nature, fashion glamor, medical, astro or other type of photographer, although I've done some of all of those.

"Fine Art" is what I envision as what someone will display on the walls of their home or work place. So for all of you who think industrial types of photography like semiconductors, astro, or medical doesn't qualify, you're all quite wrong.

I'm glad I could clear this up for you folks.


Roger Hicks said:
My understanding was always that 'fine art' was in contradistinction to 'applied art', but that the distinction is by no means clear cut. Even 'decoration' (generally viewed as a very low form of applied art) can turn into 'fine art' if it's well enough done: consider a good baroque altar, or a carved Welsh love-spoon (which is folk art as well).

Like many others, I'm not always happy with the way that 'fine art' is sometimes used as an excuse. "You don't understand it? That's because it's Fine Art, not for ignorant peasants like you." I fully take Fred's point that 'fine' is NOT an indication of quality, and that fine art can be good, bad or indifferent, but it can also be code for 'unable to sell anything'.

As for someone who says, "I am an artist" I am generally more comfortable with someone who says "I am a painter" or "I am a sculptor" or "I am a musician" or "I am a photographer," because relatively few artists are good in more than one field. Even then, 'relatively few' is still quite a lot in absolute numbers. If someone says "I am an artist" I generally try to go behind the broad term by asking ""What field?" or ""What are your favourite media," or something similar. I'd say thev answers are split about evenly between those who are genuinely multi-talented (though seldom multi-geniused); those who would do better to define themselves more closely; and those who are complete twerps. Of course if I've already formed the opnion that they're a complete twerp, I won't normally bother to pursue the conversation that far.

I've never actually met anyone who would say, "I am a Fine Artist" because 'fine' is sort of taken for granted if you say "artist". Otherwise, in the applied arts, you'd be more likely to say "I'm a wood carver" or "I'm a painter" or indeed "I'm a photographer", and let someone else decide if your work is Fine, Applied or A Label For A Prat.

Sure, someone like Chris may then be asked if they do weddings, but it's always open to them to say, amiably, "I'm not really that sort of photographer."

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
 
Ted, your use of the term is unique and refreshing. As I have shot the odd painting with a shift lens myself, I might just start calling myself a FA photographer too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom