What is a "fine art print"?

[ChrisN]

Just what is a "fine art print"? What distinguishes a fine art print from any other print? Is it in the materials used, or the technique and skills of the printer? And what does the subject matter have to do with "fine art"? I've seen some quite unusual subject matter given this label!

 

[MinorTones]

I'd classify it as an archivally sound print, mounted on acid free matte board and framed. If your talking B&W, some fiber paper with the proper development, fixing and wash time.

As to the subject matter on the print. I donno something that you are proud of?

-Mitch

 

[Finder]

It is something they can charge more for. It belongs with other meaningless marketing labels:

Heavy duty
Professional
Prosumer
High quality
High speed
Revolutionary
Patented
etc.

 

[jan normandale]

Minor Tones/Mitch ' s description is what I regard as a description of a "fine art print". In any art media there is the potential to use materials of any sort. However materials that have the ability to not deteriorate over very long periods of time are considered to be necessary if one is to make a work that will last.

Papers can discolour, deteriorate, or discolour the actual media on it. Inks, pigments, etc can be fugitive and as a result the colours fade, change or dissappear. Artist quality materials are used to make 'fine art' and don't deteriorate or change for example the oils of Rembrandt or the photographs of Man Ray are still pretty much as they were when created respectively several hundred years ago or almost a hundred years ago. This means that the money you spend for your piece of art will ensure that the piece will last.

"Fine art" is not necessarily intended to be a description of the subject.

 

[jlw]

The oils of Rembrandt or the photographs of Man Ray are still pretty much as they were when created respectively several hundred years ago or almost a hundred years ago. This means that the money you spend for your piece of art will ensure that the piece will last.

On the other hand, the pastels of Degas (for example) are very fragile and have to be displayed under very tightly controlled conditions to prevent further deterioration; the same is true of most 19th-century watercolors. That doesn't stop people from spending money on them, though, or considering them "fine art."

My own take is that this phrase simply means a print that's aimed at the fine-art market. That market can be very flexible -- for example, Type C prints by "name" artists are very collectible, even though everyone in the industry knows they won't outlast the lifetimes of most of the buyers even given very careful display. A lot of collectors just don't seem to care!

 

[philm]

Perhaps something like this?

 

[jan normandale]

"A lot of collectors just don't seem to care!" by JLW

I am surprised that this is the case but the world is full of surprises. Artist quality materials don't cost that much more considering the outlay the collector will pay. Similarly I'm surprised that a collector would lay out significant cash for ephemeral work when they could buy art that has archival qualities. Anyone selling "fine art" and using fugitive materials, well that's questionable in my opinion. It certainly makes the world interesting.

Chris you probably should check to ensure that this investment doesn't end up good for a shredder or wrapping an order of tish and fips.

 

[RML]

Though a C print might not last eons, the clarity and brilliance of these prints is a personal choice of the artist. He/she prefers this medium over any other as it adds to the work of art. IMO "fine art" has less to do with the media it's created from/on than the intention of the artist. Rembrandt's paintings and drawings already last for 400 years and thet were intended to be art (whether fine art was already a consideration in his time, I don't know). The cave paintings of Lascaux already last for 20.000 years but are they fine art? And what to think of deconstructive art? These don't last very long but they are intended as expressions of art. I guess I can find myself in Finder's definition. 🙂 It's a money making scheme, and a good one at that.

 

[Finder]

Kodak Endura (the current c-print paper) is supposed to last over 100 years in dark storage, so it is not that bad. But all art will eventually fall apart. Nothing last forever. Just look at all that broken Greek sculpture populating the museums. I wonder if Venus de Milo would be as valuable if it had remained intact.

 

[sf]

"fine art print" = marketing terminology

 

[julianphotoart]

An over-used term AFAIC. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think I remember it used to be a simple, less artsy term for an "archival" print.; i.e., fibre paper, proper fixing and washing, and selenium toning. Today, yes I agree it just means a higher asking price.

 

[jan normandale]

FIW maybe this will help, here is a page which is not like any of the responses here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art

 

[Finder]

I thought this was interesting:

Fine art photography
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Fine art photography, sometimes simply called art photography, refers to high-quality archival photographic prints of pictures that are created to fulfill the creative vision of an individual professional. Such prints are reproduced, usually in limited editions, in order to be sold to dealers, collectors or curators, rather than mass reproduced in advertising or magazines. Prints will sometimes, but not always, be exhibited in an art gallery.

Especially in light of the link to "Fine art." Materialism seems to win out by the time photography comes into play. But then should we trust an on-line encyclopedia? It is free and worth every penny.

 

[ChrisN]

I like the bit that says

"The word "fine" does not so much denote the quality of the artwork in question, but the purity of the discipline. "

So - gotta work on the purity of my discipline. Maybe I need a whip. Hang on, that's already been done. Hmmm.

 

[John Camp]

I think a "fine art print" is a print that is sold as art, rather than as something else. All the other stuff may also apply to other kinds of prints -- my prints of my children are as archival as I could make them, but they ain't art. Several of them are also archivally framed and matted, but that still doesn't make them art. On the other hand, there are prints that are sold as art that aren't archival -- lots of C prints, for example. So I think intention is the most improtant thing.

My personal definition of art: Unique hand-made high craft with a philosophical dimension.

JC

 

[FrankS]

Fine Art prints are just like other prints except they are more expensive. 🙂

 

[pesphoto]

If you put a frame around something does that make it fine art?

 

[jan normandale]

I'm liking this thread, the answers are breaking me up.

Next topic is a classic.. "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" answers must be in by no later than April 1/2004.

 

[MinorTones]

Maybe I should clarify and say that my above definition is what I'd want in a fine art print.

For sure though it is just marketing. I can't disagree with that.

-Mitch

 

[ChrisN]

Several mentions of C prints - what does this mean? Are there also A, B, D etc?