What makes a bad picture a Fine Art Photograph?

[jamesdfloyd]

Now, before I get the ire of the Artistic crowd in an uproar, I want to explain my question.

Having spent virtually my entire photography career in the wedding business, excellent work was more of an objective opinion and not a subjective one, yet now that I am not in the commercial aspect of photography, I am dismayed by what is deemed Fine Art Photography.

Can someone explain what is used to differentiate Fine Art Photography from something that looks as if it where taken by a chimpanzee? 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.

Maybe my life up to this point has been about objective / qualitative delivery (the daytime Accountant in me) and not about subjective.

I would like to know your thoughts on this.

Thanks,

J.D.

 

[FrankS]

Appreciation of art is subjective.

There is also the profit motive, so whatever a famous person produces, there seem to be buyers for it. Heck, people buy toilets that famous people have used.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Now, before I get the ire of the Artistic crowd in an uproar, I want to explain my question.

Having spent virtually my entire photography career in the wedding business, excellent work was more of an objective opinion and not a subjective one, yet now that I am not in the commercial aspect of photography, I am dismayed by what is deemed Fine Art Photography.

Can someone explain what is used to differentiate Fine Art Photography from something that looks as if it where taken by a chimpanzee? 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.

Maybe my life up to this point has been about objective / qualitative delivery (the daytime Accountant in me) and not about subjective.

I would like to know your thoughts on this.

Thanks,

J.D.

Dear JD,

Not sure about 'objective', though I see part of what you mean. Even so, I'm begining to see 'fine art' merit in some of my own pics I'd dismiss as technically dubious.

If it works, it works. If not, not. Only you can judge 'not' - and your judgement may loosen up.

Cheers,

R.

 

[FrankS]

It's been quiet at RFF for a few days. This thread ought to liven things up. James, you're just trying to get back at Joe, right? 🙂

 

[jamesdfloyd]

It was not intended, but as is said, "...the law of unintended consequences..."

 

[ampguy]

in general, if there is a Copyright, date, and name in the lower right, it is worth a lot of money. Oh, and it is is fine art.

 

[FrankS]

Can we just please not begin the debate over "art" and "fine art" again, please?

 

[back alley]

It's been quiet at RFF for a few days. This thread ought to liven things up. James, you're just trying to get back at Joe, right? 🙂

get back at ME?
for what? misinterpreting my comment?

i have no idea what art is...i ain't educated in such things...but i am sure that it can be created by both film and digital means...

 

[Turtle]

LOL - fine art photography can be achieved by taking bad photographs and adding a pretentious artist statements and verbose pseudo intellectual meanderings that profess to go where nobody has been before (while ignoring the fact that lots of people have been there with far more insightful literature and fantastic images but have omitted to combine pitiful examples of both). I also recommend using the word 'semiotics' a lot to explain why your 'human factor' photos look cr_p, while (here is the clever bit) turning such drivel into work that is evidently beyond anyone who dares to question it.

OK, so I am biased, but I think *some* fine art photography is often so subjective that the only thing that truly turns some examples from garbage to masterpiece is very often the mind games being played by artist and audience and who chickens out first. Its true emperor's clothes stuff where you will get more than you bargained for if you dare to call anyone's bluff. That ranges from the Michael Smith genre of boring LF photographs to the more contemporary work. You just are not smart enough, OK?

 

[thegman]

Probably the same thing that makes Tracey Emin's My Bed "art", and my own unmade bed, just an unmade bed.

 

[jbf]

just because a photo has bad focus or low contrast does not make it a bad picture.

rules are there to be known, understood, and then broken. do you think some of the most famous musicians such as phillip glass or steve reich got where they were by conforming to 'rules' of what made something pleasant to listen to?

no.


you have to break convention to further yourself. i actually would say most photos that are technically proficient are utterly boring and mundane.


good photography to me (which just so happens to be mostly fine art photography) is that which uses photography as a tool to go beyond just images of pretty things and moves to say something deeper and more meaningful. something poignant.

most of those photographers in that fine art book, i bet have a long catologue of images which they've since snuffed out, that look a lot like those boring newspaper photojournalistic pictures, flowers, trains, etc (which you would probably deem as being good pictures).


p.s. i would also like to say that i would tend to agree with turtle in saying that good work does not need a ten page paper artist statement to explain what is happening. good fine art photography should immediately strike something deep within you. while you may not know immediately what it is supposed to say or mean, you should be able to look at a good fine art photography piece and notice an underlying intrinsic merit and quality about it.

 

[johnnygulliver]

there is no simple answer - if you don't get it now, then unfortunately the answer to this question needs 4 years experience at a top art school, to introduce some complexity into the argument: I am being serious.

 

[jamesdfloyd]

I think that Turtle has hit the point I was trying to ask - more of perception of the image.

 

[PKR]

Hi James;

I'm in that world a bit, in that my work is represented by agents.

I would say that MOMA(NY) and the gallery owners decide what's art or "fine art" and what's not. Magazine editors may have some input,but it's usually money and politics that make the decision. When I say politics, I mean "art world" politics. It's a small group of museum curators and gallery owners and what they think.

In Europe I'm sure it's the same. Many shows travel the world and are arranged & juried by the museum curators key to the show's creation. If the artist (s) represented in the show have gallery representation, they too are involved.

 

[jamesdfloyd]

PKR...I would really like to discuss this more with you sometime. Really interested into the "inside" of the industry. I had a difficult time reconciling that attitudes of the auction house industry years ago when I work in it...maybe you can explain a few things.

J.D.

 

[drewbarb]

'What is art' is an old debate- not just in photography, but in all media. If you go to art school, after learning your techniques and becoming fluent with your materials, the subject of what is or is not art inevitably becomes the main topic of many intense (and often very enjoyable) discussions. At the end, there is no single definitive answer. We all know art when we see it- and we all have different ideas about what is and is not art.

The only point I've ever found in this exercise is the discussion itself- the exchange of ideas. There will be no real answers- because art is subjective. Good commercial photography may well be subjective, but art isn't trying to communicate the same kinds of clear ideas that commerce is. A wedding photo needs to show the bride looking her most beautiful, to tell the story of the event, to depict the families marking a milestone in their lives. An advertising photo needs to show the product it is selling, and may also need to convey a concept. In these cases the intended message is clear, even concrete.

Art is not constrained by these things. An artist may make their ideas or message very clear in an image, or their intent may be utterly obscure- even to them (this, by the way is often my own personal definition of 'bad' art...) Art can be an exploration of ideas; but in the end, art is to some degree in the eye of the beholder. It is a mistake to confuse art with beauty, by the way- art doesn't have to be beautiful, or even nice. And not all art works for all viewers. We can be trite and say that if someone signs a piece and asks for a fabulous sum of money for it, it's art, or that if someone writes a serious ARTIST'S STATEMENT, this makes something art- but it comes down to intention and reception. What does the person who makes a thing intend in the creation of the thing? How does the viewer receive or react to seeing or experiencing the thing? For me, art lies in these things. "Art is not a thing- art is a way."

 

[Al Patterson]

Now, before I get the ire of the Artistic crowd in an uproar, I want to explain my question.

Having spent virtually my entire photography career in the wedding business, excellent work was more of an objective opinion and not a subjective one, yet now that I am not in the commercial aspect of photography, I am dismayed by what is deemed Fine Art Photography.

Can someone explain what is used to differentiate Fine Art Photography from something that looks as if it where taken by a chimpanzee? 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.

Maybe my life up to this point has been about objective / qualitative delivery (the daytime Accountant in me) and not about subjective.

I would like to know your thoughts on this.

Thanks,

J.D.

IMHO, a bad picture is a bad picture. Fine Art is entire different beast altogether...

(trust me, I've got "bad picture" down)

 

[Keith]

I used to think public art was a wank and a waste of taxpayer's money ... I didn't understand it and could see no value in it. Then I worked for a sculptor who does numerous public art projects ... we are now very good friends and along the way he opened my eyes somewhat and I feel I now 'get it!'

I'm not saying all public art is good but to me it's now all valid ... photography is no different and images that wouldn't have interested me a while ago now pull me in in a different way. If I walked into a gallery and looked at a photograph but couldn't see anything in it for me personally I'd move along to the next image which may or may not engage me. A person following along behind me may feel very differently about these images ... which is good IMO.

 

[wolfpeterson]

This won't answer the question at hand, but in a debate this ambiguous, I figured I would lay down my experience.

I went to art school for video and photography and I graduated a year ago. In the middle of my last year, I happened to run into a grade-school friend of mine at a bar. He asked me what I was up to. I said I was doing photography. "Oh so do you do photoshoots or weddings?" I said neither. "Ohhhhh so you, like, take abstract photos of flowers and stuff?" and I said well, no. The way I then proceeded to explain art photography or my use of photography as an art medium was this: I make paintings with my camera. That cryptic message didn't help me from being labeled an "artiste" (with pinky raised). Our conversation ended soon after.

At my grad show, I made 30x40 prints of these. You may read whatever you would like.

Suffice to say I didn't sell anything.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I used to think public art was a wank and a waste of taxpayer's money ... I didn't understand it and could see no value in it. Then I worked for a sculptor who does numerous public art projects ... we are now very good friends and along the way he opened my eyes somewhat and I feel I now 'get it!'

I'm not saying all public art is good but to me it's now all valid ... photography is no different and images that wouldn't have interested me a while ago now pull me in in a different way. If I walked into a gallery and looked at a photograph but couldn't see anything in it for me personally I'd move along to the next image which may or may not engage me. A person following along behind me may feel very differently about these images ... which is good IMO.

Dear Keith,

(From post 3)

your judgement may loosen up.

We are, it seems, in complete agreement.

Cheers,

R.