the term: Fine Art

I don't use a tilt shift lens

I don't use a tilt shift lens

I just use lens with little or no visible distortion. My works are in museums from around the world, and a lot are the very first images ever taken of them.

Chris101 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Well Lawrence, your model could use either some Rogaine and/or "A Touch of Grey" maybe 😉 But seriously, which of the two is really the fine art photo if someone were to buy just one?

Here's some fine art, It sells for 19.95 shipped and signed for an 8x10 on archival 100+ year Wilhelm certified paper:

969458056_BhqCM-L.jpg
 
As this thread sinks into more confusion- "Fine Artist" vs "Fine Art Photographer" I can understand, very clear.

But a "Fine Art Photographer" is not necessarily a "Fine Artist".

Now- I saw an exhibit of "Fine Art Photography" in a Museum in Charleston. Recent work, made with a large format rail camera. Street photography, full use of perspective control. In my opinion, that exhibit was "Fine Art".

I do mostly scientific/technical photohraphy and scientific visualization. Some of my CGI was posted as Art in our main Admin building for years. Not fine art- it was the results of a statistical model, but unless you knew that it appeared as "abstract art". When I walk into a museum of Modern Art, Nina has to put up with me saying "Fractal Based".
 
This is a very interesting thread here and there are lots of great ideas. I think we are trying to be a little too specific about this. The words Art, Fine Art and even Photographer all can have different meanings to everyone. We well never agree on their meaning. I think the term Fine Art Photography does separate it, in most peoples minds, from Wedding Photography or Child Photography or Documentary Photography. All sorts of photographers and photographs will be categorize as Fine Art Photographer or Fine Art Photography and that will never change. That however; won't change my mind about using it as a general description of my photography. It's simply several general terms that are vague at best and it will never will be any different. - Jim
 
context

context

Brian, I believe that if you saw these images in a different context, and over time, like in ads, peoples houses, on the web, over say a year or so, that you would not think of them the same way you did seeing them all at once at the "Fine Art Photography" exhibit at the Museum.

Also, just because something was not created as fine art, doesn't mean it can't become fine art.

If Ansel Adams, or even Uncle Earl or you or I took photos of a plant or flower that was based on Fibonacci series, it could very well still be fine art.

Brian Sweeney said:
As this thread sinks into more confusion- "Fine Artist" vs "Fine Art Photographer" I can understand, very clear.

But a "Fine Art Photographer" is not necessarily a "Fine Artist".

Now- I saw an exhibit of "Fine Art Photography" in a Museum in Charleston. Recent work, made with a large format rail camera. Street photography, full use of perspective control. In my opinion, that exhibit was "Fine Art".

I do mostly scientific/technical photohraphy and scientific visualization. Some of my CGI was posted as Art in our main Admin building for years. Not fine art- it was the results of a statistical model, but unless you knew that it appeared as "abstract art". When I walk into a museum of Modern Art, Nina has to put up with me saying "Fractal Based".
Click to expand...
 
The discussion goes on and on. I don't really consider my photographs to be art. They are photographs. My intent is probably not the same as a wedding photographer of a commercial photographer or a news photographer. If someone asks me what kind of photography I do, I will likely say, fine art photography. If it is or isn't, I really don't care. It's just a vague description as to how my photography is different than the many other kinds of photograph commonly thought of by the general public. And who really gives a rats ass anyway. I will be taking pictures tomorrow and I will enjoy it. - Jim
 
Ampguy, No I don't mean that only someone who has studied can produce a work of art, it is the study and/or the practice that make them an artist. I probably worded it badly, sorry. Although you are a ...........(insert job) if you create a series of work or a piece of work that comes from a concept or from certain meaning it can be a work of art. An artist can do a portrait and it may not be art as it may be a family album shot or a passport shot. At the same time someone who is say a plumber may do a series of photographs of other plumbers and it be art.
 
Hi Al

Hi Al

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it.

First, I don't think you can assume that only someone with a degree or certification has studied. I'd much rather have a 30yr. experienced German car mechanic working on my German automobile even if he doesn't have his current ASE certification, while the kid down the street at Meineke does.

The technologies you are using right now to communicate with me, would not have been created or deployed in the time and way they were, if folks from a wide variety of disciplines outside of engineering weren't involved.

It's interesting that you mentioned plumbing, because I just read about a plumber who was also a nature photographer for popular nature magazines. So good in fact, that his photos of some wildlife were better than any previous nature "artist" photographer had ever taken. Unfortunately, he did get eaten by a bear. But I don't think that he would have tasted any better or worse to the bear if he had his MFA degree ...


al1966 said:
Ampguy, No I don't mean that only someone who has studied can produce a work of art, it is the study and/or the practice that make them an artist. I probably worded it badly, sorry. Although you are a ...........(insert job) if you create a series of work or a piece of work that comes from a concept or from certain meaning it can be a work of art. An artist can do a portrait and it may not be art as it may be a family album shot or a passport shot. At the same time someone who is say a plumber may do a series of photographs of other plumbers and it be art.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Back in the days of the Commodore 64, we used TVs as computer monitors. So all our graphics were on TV. The "IQ" of the photography left something to be desired though.
 
No problem here with the term "fine art." It makes a useful distinction between casual photography and the intention to art.

But I have an allergic reaction to photographers labeling their own work "fine art." We see that all the time on web sites. I know they are not making claims to its quality. But it's for the viewer to judge whether your work is art or fine or both or neither.

John
 
I though Fine Arts were a precise group of them, not any craft...

I also thought if a Fine Arts academy started giving photography classes, that wouldn't make photography become a new Fine Art... Are video and body painting other Fine Arts?

Cheers,

Juan
 
johnwolf said:
You're right. The OP is not referring art that is fine, but to "Fine Art" as a category of photography, which is no different than "Art." But somehow I can't disassociate the two. I guess that's why labeling one's own work "fine art" or "art" seems presumptuous to me.

John
Click to expand...

Its no more presumptuous than labelling a photo you are hired to take of a box of cereal "Commercial Photography". That's simply what its called. Same with the term fine art or art. Thats just what photography done by professional artists is called. I really don't get the hostility. If you're not an artist, fine, don't call your work art. If you wish you were but you suck and keep getting rejected by galleries, get over it. Tearing down the successful doesn't make you look better (and yes, this is, in my experience 99.9% of those who have such a mental block against the use of the word 'art').
 
That one's Fine Commercial Photography.

Seriously, Chris, this is not against you at all, and there is no hostility in any way... And it is not even against the huge amount of mediocre fine art photographers you're not part of... This is just about photography can for sure be art if anyone wants to see it as art, but the Fine Arts (Bellas Artes, Beaux-Arts) are others... So when the word fine is used it's used with a certain interest: to pretend or reflect a certain quality given by the academy of Fine Arts, or for commercial, higher pricing reasons. This is what lots of people think: so many people that galleries and photographers use the term fine because the masses think like that. Of course lots of fine art photographers are great.

Cheers,

Juan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom