What makes a bad picture a Fine Art Photograph?

[Leigh Youdale]

It has a lot to do with the psychobabble that accompanies many "fine art' images and exhibitions, often written by the 'artist' or a gallery, and the old parable about the king having no clothes.

 

[peterm1]

" What makes a bad picture a Fine Art Photograph? "

If I were to use wit, I suppose the best answer might be something like - "Chutzpah!"

But if I may be serious for a moment, boy does that question beg a few other questions, like, "Who said that bad photos are or can be fine art?" And "What constitutes a bad photo?"

For a start I have seen quite a few technically perfect photos that appear in fine art photo mags masquerading as fine art. And some of these are absolute rubbish (sometimes literally. NO I mean it - photographs of garbage.) So its not about technical skill. My view is its about "vision". A bit like the art gallery that has a blank canvas hanging on a wall in its modern art exhibit.

 

[Paul T.]

It has a lot to do with the psychobabble that accompanies many "fine art' images and exhibitions, often written by the 'artist' or a gallery, and the old parable about the king having no clothes.

Does it?

There is an undercurrent of jealousy here, that some people make a living (or scrape a living) as an artist. Personally, I have the opposite view, I admire it. Of course 99 per cent of what is presented as art is rubbish and won't endure, but it's worth it for the one per cent.

I have a friend from whom I commissioned (illustration) work for a publication a dozen years ago, bought a painting for another friend five years ago for £300, and this spring heard he'd had his NYC show bought, in its entirety, for $500k or so. Sounds like big money - but he's been staring at blank canvases and a studio wall for 12 years now, without going mad. I couldn't do that. Could you?

The technique of photography, as referred to by the OP, is in any case merely a sort of grammar. You may be able to write grammatically, with the commas and quote marks in the right place, but that does not make one a writer. A writer may, like F Scott Fitzgerald, be dreadful at spelling; what really matters is the ability to transport us to another place or frame of mind, or make us look at the world in a different way.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Let's just turn the question around: what makes a GOOD picture a Fine Art photograph?

Then you realize that the OP asked the wrong question to begin with.

Cheers,

R.

 

[George Bonanno]

Let us all get something straight. Photography is a craft, a mechanical process. It is not fine art by any stretch of the imagination. Now, what makes a photograph appear (falsely) as art ? It has to do with visual stimulation, a mental sensation that excites. Typically from an image that we have not seen, dreamed or thought of before. Something visually new to the mind. Take into consideration pictures produced by Minor White and Gerald Slota.

 

[Sparrow]

Let us all get something straight. Photography is a craft, a mechanical process. It is not fine art by any stretch of the imagination. Now, what makes a photograph appear (falsely) as art ? It has to do with visual stimulation, a mental sensation that excites. Typically from an image that we have not seen, dreamed or thought of before. Something visually new to the mind. Take into consideration pictures produced by Minor White and Gerald Slota.

Glad you sorted that out for us, we were all worrying our little heads about that one ....

 

[George Bonanno]

Glad you sorted that out for us, we were all worrying our little heads about that one ....

My pleasure...

Your pictures are absolutely superb.

 

[Sparrow]

My pleasure...

Your pictures are absolutely superb.

Thank you, but is it still art?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Let us all get something straight. Photography is a craft, a mechanical process. It is not fine art by any stretch of the imagination. Now, what makes a photograph appear (falsely) as art ? It has to do with visual stimulation, a mental sensation that excites. Typically from an image that we have not seen, dreamed or thought of before. Something visually new to the mind. Take into consideration pictures produced by Minor White and Gerald Slota.

Dear George,

You can get whatever you like 'straight', but you're onto a loser if you expect all of us to agree with an unfounded and indefensible ex cathedra statement like that.

Maybe my imagination stretches a bit further than yours, but I fail to see why dabbing ground-up earth on a bit of fabric with some pig bristles tied to a stick can be 'art' and photography can't.

Presumably you'd dismiss R. Mutt's urinal, or Picasso's bull's head made from a bicycle saddle and handlebars, with the same cavalier disdain.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Red Robin]

Art?

Art?

Don't know anything about "Fine Art'. But I do know what I like. 😎 What I like may be ready for the trash bin for you as what you like may offend my eyes. Why not celebrate the wondrous diversity of photography and just try shooting more pictures. I'm still not proficient in my skill to be able to reproduce the pictures I like, but hey, it may be art to you!

 

[Sparrow]

... worth a second outing in my opinion 😉

 

[emraphoto]

That is abject nonsense.

Breaking convention is one of many roads to creativity. Another, equally valid, is to do outstanding work within an existing tradition. And breaking convention per se gets you nowhere (beyond being an unconventional bore). You still have to do good work.

By no means do I disagree. Might I add though that we must foster the environment where individuals CAN break the rules or challenge status quo. My humble opinion is that 'art', in at least the photographic sense of the word, is as much about the process as the results.

Most of the Aperture type stuff I see leaves me cold. I do realize it is all about creating the environment where the 'photographers' are encouraged to continue their pursuit.

 

[jsrockit]

Today I purchased a copy of a well known Fine Art Photography magazine and while a small fraction of the images had “value” in my opinion, most seemed to be something that my 10th grade photography teacher would have given me an “F” for taking; low contrast, poor focus and dark.

Sometimes the art world is fixated on concept and not as much on aesthetics and / or technical aspects. When I see stuff that I don't get, I try to imagine why the artist CHOSE that way to present the work. Usually there is a reason and a concept behind it. Unfortunately, most people forget abouty concept and tend to simplify people's work.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sometimes the art world is fixated on concept and not as much on aesthetics and / or technical aspects. When I see stuff that I don't get, I try to imagine why the artist CHOSE that way to present the work. Usually there is a reason and a concept behind it. Unfortunately, most people forget about concept and tend to simplify people's work.

Very true, but just as one can decide for oneself (though not for others) whether something is 'good art' or 'bad art', one can also form an opinion about 'good concept', 'bad concept', 'reasonable concept beaten to death by not-very-competent artist', 'concept that has disappeared up its own bum' and 'concept I've seen a thousand times before, usually a lot better executed.' And, of course, 'concept worth stealing, with or without modification, and trying to execute better'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

... not stolen, inspired by ...

 

[eleskin]

My Pratt Photography MFA and beyond

My Pratt Photography MFA and beyond

I remember clearly when I first started my MFA in photography at Pratt Institute that my professor (Phil Perkis) stated that we would not discuss as much film processing, cameras, etc,,, and more about content and meaning of work and how it relates to other students, professors, and the history of art and photography (politics too). It was understood at this level, the technical aspects were assumed to be already mastered by the MFA candidate (I hate to say it, I am still learning, but we all are!), and time was better spent on the meaning of the work.

Now the funny thing is at that time, I was lazy about the technical (I used to feel the water for film development, not measure it's temperature with a thermometer , etc,,,). There were others like me and worse, but eventually I looked at myself in the mirror and became more concerned with being exact technically while at the same time being motivated mostly by content. After school I met a friend who had trouble technically, but did produce some nice fine art photography. For me, I could not do this. I had to be on top with the latest films and chemistry as well as new film formats.
Content still was primary, but learning more and mastering technical aspects became very important for two reasons. One is it expanded what I was capable of in terms of making art. Two, it made it easier to make money for commercial clients, whose money supported my "fine art" photography. So here, some photographers produce funky fine art works, but do all of them know what they are really capable of? No, because they have not mastered the technical. Lets put it this way, being technically advanced improves the odds of being successful as a fine art photographer, but you must have that third eye photo vision first. I select lenses, etc based on the artistic vision they present to me. I pre visualize with a lens before I buy it. This is what I did before buying a used Noctilux. I can go on and on. Let's just say the artistic vision comes first, but mastering the technical makes that vision much more clear, and gives the artist new possibilities they would never have considered if they were not exposed to new things. Oh by the way, I need to stress the importance of the history of photography as an art and how one gravitates towards various masters in their own work (Sabastio Salgado is a favorite of mine).

 

[johannielscom]

Let us all get something straight. Photography is a craft, a mechanical process. It is not fine art by any stretch of the imagination. Now, what makes a photograph appear (falsely) as art ? It has to do with visual stimulation, a mental sensation that excites. Typically from an image that we have not seen, dreamed or thought of before. Something visually new to the mind. Take into consideration pictures produced by Minor White and Gerald Slota.

For now this will do for me. I'm still trying to master the craft to where I can rely on my skills, and in the meantime will try to get somewhere I wanna be (where is that?) when it comes to subject, scenery, focus and composition. Maybe I'll even get to excite somebody in the end, that would be nice.

I'll get back to the OP's question in a few years time, I really do not feel qualified to submit anything substantial to the subject yet. But I'm set to get to the Fine Art Territories in due time!

 

[Brian Legge]

I have taken a single shot that I would call fne art. I am terrible with the conceptual side of photography. Put something interesting in front of me and I usuallyl come up a compelling shot, but I put a blank canvas in front of me and I am lost.

Without that higher level previsualization and concept, I'm relctant to think of my work as art at all. Its just an immediate copy of what was in front of me.

I would like to get to the point where my work has more intent but I havent sussed out the path or process yet.

 

[jsrockit]

Without that higher level previsualization and concept, I'm relctant to think of my work as art at all. Its just an immediate copy of what was in front of me.

You put a frame around something... you chose what to photograph... your concept could be just as simple as you photograph what is around you... many artists have done this.