Fine art photography

Molinier, Autoportrait en Érection, 1965

Hujar, Seated Nude, 1976

Interesting the different approaches ten years apart. Not sure either photographer was aware of the other. Nevertheless, it highlights how much of a dialogue art can be. For me, the comparison also emphasizes how so many other aspects of a photo besides subject matter affect what I feel and take away ...

I have no idea what you make of that arthur... ?

I find it sad! in poor health at the time of his death at 76. very sad!

Hopefully he would find satisfaction with his work living on; not an insignificant legacy.

As photographer he was a ground breaker, in an often suggested (or explored in paintings) but a rarely openly explored photography genre. Times have changed... somewhat.Yes I find it intentionally provocative/challenging (not a bad way to look at cultural taboos imo) but I also see beauty in the execution of many of his works.

'Even by the standards of the Surrealists, Pierre Molinier led an extraordinary life. Locked away in his Bordeaux studio (or 'boudoir' as he preferred to call it) the artist acted out the kind of sado-masochistic fantasies that Salvador Dali and his contemporaries dared only to explore in paint'

'His enigmatic photographs continue to fascinate audiences, artists and photographers, and his multifaceted body of work, with its fantasized and fetishized bodies, is still challenging to this day.'

'His influence can be seen in the work of hugely influential Japanese photographer Nobuyoshi Araki, and controversial American photographer Robert Mapplethorpe -- in its eroticism, fetishism and sexual powerplay. And in the work of Cindy Sherman, whose own self-portraits pushed the boundaries of gender and identity in photography.'

Molinier killed himself. I believe he left two suicide notes.

One before and one after?

I have no idea what you make of that arthur... ?

Well, Molinier certainly didn't beat around the bush in his photos. So, perhaps, as a homage to that, I'll say Arthur moved briskly from "porn" to "weird" to "suicide." And that's a pretty straight line. Anyway, that's what I make of Arthur's recent contributions here. Certainly nothing more.

On a lighter note, however, here's something I read about Molinier, and I can't help but think he'd smile at this being brought up right about now ...

"Molinier said that the legs of either sex arouse him equally, as long as they are hairless and dressed up in black stockings."

"Molinier said that the legs of either sex arouse him equally, as long as they are hairless and dressed up in black stockings." perfect photo accompaniment sam!

"... and I can't help but think he'd smile at this being brought up right about now" You can definitely see he had a humorous side.

"Certainly nothing more" I was hoping for more ... but with the silence that followed I stopped caring.

Moderator's note: I would remind posters that the Photo.net terms so use state that you can only post pictures that you have taken your self. You can post a link to other photos if you want to

The photo of mine you deleted is one I took myself. What made you think I didn't take it and why didn’t you ask me if I’d taken it before deleting it? I am reposting it.

Moderator note: I apologize to samstevens for deleting his photo. The conversation led me to believe that it was a photo by Molinier. I regret my error.

Well, Molinier certainly didn't beat around the bush in his photos. So, perhaps, as a homage to that, I'll say Arthur moved briskly from "porn" to "weird" to "suicide." And that's a pretty straight line. Anyway, that's what I make of Arthur's recent contributions here. Certainly nothing more.

"

Yes, I think we can posit a direct line from Porn to Fine Art Porn to Weird Porn to Suicide. Mental illness can be a problem, even in photography. I certainly hope I haven't offended anyone.

Yes, I think we can posit a direct line from Porn to Fine Art Porn to Weird Porn to Suicide. Mental illness can be a problem, even in photography. I certainly hope I haven't offended anyone.

A viewer showing a lack of sophistication and understanding about life and photography isn't offensive to me. It's enlightening.

"What made you think I didn't take it...."

Like I said it is the perfect photo accompaniment sam!

to

"Molinier said that the legs of either sex arouse him equally, as long as they are hairless and dressed up in black stockings."

Like I said it is the perfect photo accompaniment sam!

On a performative level, the thread as it's unfolded probably does art, photography, and Molinier a degree of pulchritudinous if not outright flamboyant justice!

My fine art rendering... shot within the first few days of acquiring my Sony RX10 MIII

When 'Fine' and 'Art' are hypothecated in photography what falls out is crassly commercial, whether trad or digital.

It typically incorporates landscape or the partially clad.

It is primarily made to be sold to people of limited discernment who need something nice to fill the big wall behind the sofa, so it can be ignored in favour of the TV - which is in front of the sofa.

It's typically of a high technical standard, because otherwise 'I could do that.'

It may be true to say that even painters of pretty seascapes for little galleries in pretty coastal towns are less hidebound by dull convention than 'Fine Art' photography.

It typically incorporates landscape or the partially clad.

Or the deliberately inharmonious and downright weird/confusing - such that any unpretentious viewer might be afraid to criticise it for fear of being branded as lacking sophistication and understanding.

Or maybe the unsophisticated have sufficient understanding to know when (poor quality) wool is trying to be pulled over their eyes?

Or the deliberately inharmonious and downright weird/confusing - such that any unpretentious viewer might be afraid to criticise it for fear of being branded as lacking sophistication and understanding.

 

Or maybe the unsophisticated have sufficient understanding to know when (poor quality) wool is trying to be pulled over their eyes?

That style mostly 'self-identifies' as 'Documentary Photography' and definitely not as 'Fine Art'

Also, Just to help you figure the difference, in the digital world 'Fine Art' photographers still like to refer to inkjet prints as 'giclee' when there are gullible punters around. 'Documentarians' and plain 'Artists' tend to refer to them as 'Digital Prints'

Are not the mocking tones in the three comments above as condescending as any hypothetically exaggerated “fine artist” who suggests a lack of sophistication in her viewers?

And if so, would that not be justifiably so?

And if so, would that not be justifiably so?

It would be as justifiable as the fine artist condescending to the superficiality of many critics, which the critics are whining about.