AMAZING Fine Art

<p>Fine art Lovers, check this out:<br>

http://www.andreasgefeller.com/supervisions/works_since_2005</p>

<p>Web site of Andreas Gefeller called Supervisions. </p>

<p>I have to admit that I have a very hard time getting excited about those images. The category of "fine art" has always been an enigma to me.</p>

<p>It's fine art if enough of the people who matters says it is.</p>

<p>Is that what "Fine Art" is? I've always wondered about that.</p>

<p>Joseph,<br>

Gorgeous site! Thanks for letting us know about this fine art photographer. Look guys, he didn't say "fine art photographer I guarantee you will like or you don't know anything about fine art", just simply a site by a fine art photogarpher that he finds pretty amazing. And Im pretty happy he said something cause I agree....disclaimer - it doesn't matter if I like the site or not :)</p>

<p>I love fine art, checked out that site, and my verdict: not. Boring.</p>

<p>Please explain what is amazing, or even a little worthwhile about it.</p>

<p>For me, the classification of fine art leads me to imagine a debate between artist and viewer. Ending with the viewer throwing his arms up in defeat and saying, "fine, it's art."</p>

<p>Pretty boring on the screen, maybe it's better seeing it in person.</p>

<p>The next time someone complains about the apparent disparity in the ratings and critiques system, please refer them to this thread rather than the previous discussions about ratings and critiques.</p>

<p>I can't think of a better example of why ratings and critiques *should* vary considerably. We each have different tastes and the ratings and critiques should reflect that. Unanimity makes me suspect a conspiracy is at work.</p>

<p>"We each have different tastes and the ratings and critiques should reflect that"</p>

<p>That Lex is a very debatable point of view, at least to me. There are lots of photos that aren't consistent with personal taste but where one still can appreciate it's aesthethical and technical quality. THAT should be leading in reviewing.</p>

<p>True, in an ideal world. But even the most open minded critic will occasionally find it difficult to avoid the bias of personal filters when evaluating creative works that are beyond the boundaries of his experience and personal aesthetics. Note, for example, James Dickey's commentary on the poetry of Anne Sexton; or Ansel Adams posture toward William Mortensen.</p>

<p>How many productive artists are free enough from such biases to evaluate other artists equitably? And how many qualified critics capable of such tolerance, completely free of bias, are also productive artists? You probably already suspect where I'm going with this. Photo.net's own history repeatedly shows that good photographers do not necessarily make good critics. And some photographers will never accept the criticism of someone whose photography they do not also hold in high esteem.</p>

<p>basically correct (although it's fair to say that Ann Sexton's and even more so Sylvia Plath's poetry has always led to polarised opinions and debate).</p>

<p>Yes, there is bias for sure even among the best and some of it <strong>does</strong> reflect in some of the critiques but that's not the same as stating that it <strong>should</strong> .<br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

<em> "...that good photographers do not necessarily make good critics"</em><br>

absolutely true</p>

<p><em>"some photographers will never accept the criticism of someone whose photography they do not also hold in high esteem"</em><br>

their loss I should think</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Not my personal aesthetics. Ditto Lex for your last comment.</p>

<p>Maybe fine art but certainly a one trick pony.</p>

<p>Fine art is like Ice Cream. Anyone can make it if they have the right equipment and call it ice cream, but not every flavor will appeal to everyone, and some flavors will appeal to very few.</p>

<p>

<p>　<br>

First there was the term ‘ok’, then there was the term ‘good’, along came ‘great’, next we had ‘super’, and so now we hear ‘awesome’.<br>

　<br>

　<br>

First came ‘pictures’, then came ‘art’, now we’re hearing the term like ‘fine art’.<br>

　<br>

　<br>

It’s all hyperbole, with each generation redefining something that is all too often just common place with another meaningless form of heightened exaggeration…<br>

　<br>

　<br>

Pretty soon, we'll all be screaming at each other, as pitchmen do on TV to get our attention for meaningless drivel...</p>

</p>

<p>Gotta go with Lex on this. If a picture doesn't fall within my personal tastes, I'm certainly not going to rate it high in aesthetics. I don't find too much reason to rate many photos high in originality. For the most part, "It's been done before." <br>

<br />Maybe it is time to add "Technical Quality" as a ratings category.</p>

<p>No piece of art is going to please all the people, all the time. Simple fact, and if people can't accept that there are going to be some who don't appreciate their work, perhaps they shouldn't post and expose themselves to hurt feelings. </p>

<p>"pretty soon...drivel" Isn't that what is happening here and now? Lex: Do you notice how(relatively) diplomatic I have become?</p>

<p>If this photo had been posted on PN for comments and/or ratings, I simply would have skipped it. Giving it a low rating because I don't like this kind of "fine art" is (or should be) contrary to the purpose of giving ratings. But it's sometimes hard to make this distinction, which is one reason why I've always had misgivings about ratings.</p>

<p>If "<strong>Fine art</strong> describes any <a title="Art form" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_form">art form</a> developed primarily for <a title="Aesthetic" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetic">aesthetics</a> and/or concept rather than <a title="Utility" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility">utility" (see Wikipedia) </a> then these photos of Andreas Gefeller seem to fall into the category, whether people like it or not. I like them although my screen does not pay particular tribute to them. They all deserve to be seen in very large format.</p>

<p>I didn't get the photos. I looked at them, and I couldn't see a relationship in them. By contrast, I met this photographer, who told me that she was interested in showing abstract patterns by making close-ups of rusting automobiles. I "got" her photos right away. To me, there was a simplicity in her approach, and it wasn't really all that complicated. I enjoyed those fine art photos.</p>

<p>http://www.janekramerphotography.com/fineart.html</p>

<p>I didn't get that same kind of feeling from the fine art photos in the OP. Instead, I felt kind of confused. I kept asking myself, what is this, and what is the point? I wasn't receiving "aesthetic gratification." I was receiving confusion, and I lost interest after a short while. </p>

<p>Why did you find the photos amazing?</p>

<p>"It's fine art if enough of the people who matters says it is"</p>

<p>And who would that be?</p>

<p>I am glad the OP, or who ever, likes it. Its just not for me.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=949046">j falth</a> , May 16, 2009; 10:08 a.m.　<br /> Pretty soon, we'll all be screaming at each other, as pitchmen do on TV to get our attention for meaningless drivel...</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

<br />

We've already been there for quite awhile. Check photo.net's long history of complaints about ratings and critiques. Rather than use low ratings and negative criticism as motivation to improve, some folks discover they're better at social networking than at photography. They resort to their real skills - making friends whose friendly compliments will cover up for mediocre art.<br />

<br />