Jump to content

Fine Art — Why is it Mostly Film?


Recommended Posts

Here’s an acceptable, though not exhaustive, description of fine art. People will differ in this, which is … fine, and what work one may consider fine art another may not. Such is life! Anyway it’s a good enough working definition for a start, with the caveat that there’s more to it.

One definition of fine art is "a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic and intellectual purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture." In that sense, there are conceptual differences between the fine arts and the decorative arts or applied arts (these two terms covering largely the same media). As far as the consumer of the art was concerned, the perception of aesthetic qualities required a refined judgment usually referred to as having good taste, which differentiated fine art from popular art and entertainment.[4]

 

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

While I think it’s a mistake to exclude digital, there is a sense among some in the photography world that film is purer. I think there’s also a sense that film requires more skill and more expertise with regard to craft. Again, I think all that is a mistake and probably evolving. But the notion of fine art is also tied to history and tradition.

 

In any case, I don’t know that I’d generalize from what you’re finding on artsy.net to what is going on in the world of photography. There’s plenty of digital stuff that I’d consider fine art to be found in the “Fine Arts” museums of San Francisco and in local galleries that specialize in fine art.

  • Like 5

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s an acceptable, though not exhaustive, description of fine art. People will differ in this, which is … fine, and what work one may consider fine art another may not. Such is life! Anyway it’s a good enough working definition for a start, with the caveat that there’s more to it.

 

While I think it’s a mistake to exclude digital, there is a sense among some in the photography world that film is purer. I think there’s also a sense that film requires more skill and more expertise with regard to craft. Again, I think all that is a mistake and probably evolving. But the notion of fine art is also tied to history and tradition.

 

In any case, I don’t know that I’d generalize from what you’re finding on artsy.net to what is going on in the world of photography. There’s plenty of digital stuff that I’d consider fine art to be found in the “Fine Arts” museums of San Francisco and in local galleries that specialize in fine art.

 

You make some interesting points. I think you're right in saying that film is perceived to be 'Purer'. Also that it requires more skill. Thanks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scanning is digital. Careful, you’re becoming impure! :)

 

I haven't wet printed for ages, but here's a fine art guy who still does ... link - Darkroom Underground - Your Analog Photography Community

 

I'm happy to scan medium format negs to large file sizes (as tiffs) to reduce the size of the pixels. My A3 printer might have limited capabilities, however I'm very pleased with what I've been getting from it when using quality Epson paper compatible to the Epson printer. Black and whites are especially good, with the printer's three different black cartridges for tone range.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my (amateur, exclusively digital) 2 cts:

 

I prefer the quality of film images too above digital images. But apart from the quality of film images, could it also be that 'film fine art' (as opposed to 'digital fine art') is presented and seen as 'more exclusive' than digital fine art?

 

TBH I'm sure that potential 'fine art photo buyers' really do notice the difference in quality between film and digital images.

 

Just as a last point: IHMO most photos I've ever seen that are advertised or tagged as 'fine art' have been far from being 'fine art'!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IHMO most photos I've ever seen that are advertised or tagged as 'fine art' have been far from being 'fine art'!

What, in your opinion, makes them not 'fine art'?

I prefer the quality of film images too above digital images.

When you do your comparison, are you comparing digital prints with film darkroom prints or digital prints with digitally printed film prints or digital screen images that started from a digital camera with digital screen images that started from a film camera?

I'm sure that potential 'fine art photo buyers' really do notice the difference in quality between film and digital images.

And I'm not sure but would suspect just the opposite. If noticed at all, it's probable that a lot of fine art photo buyers notice the difference when they read it on the label and think it a matter of prestige and monetary value. I doubt most of them would see for themselves whatever supposed quality differences are asserted in the photography world.

 

My guess would be that there are many fine art digital prints of higher quality than many fine art film prints and many fine art film prints that are higher quality than many fine art digital prints. It depends on who's doing the printing.

 

In terms of the buying public, I'd say if you could narrow it down, you'd find that a lot of photos are bought more because of content than anything else, except perhaps among collectors where the name of the photographer and the potential monetization is often of utmost importance.

  • Like 1

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think messing around with chemicals is seen as a craft, while digital magic is not. And i think JDMvW is right about the reason for that.

And that craft aspect is still a large part, the biggest part, of Fine Art. Fine Art still is an adolation of craft, even more so than of (empty) beauty.

And as such (and i refer to threads in the past) not Art, nor art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take your points, Sam and I bow to your expertise and experience which are considerably more than mine :).

 

Let's take your points one by one.

 

I've been a volunteer at a fairly large-scale (80.000 visitors) biennial photo festival for many years. Although the 'themes' change from one festival to the next, the festival always aims to show the best in international contemporary photography. Specifically: 'innovative visual exhibitions' on that year's theme. A (perhaps) unique characteristic of this festival is that many photos are displayed outdoors on scaffolds that measure some 2-4m in height and 4-3 m in breadth. So they are big! Some exhibitions are graphic, others a mix of photos and videos, some photos might be either digital or film but occasionally see photos where I think 'this could only be taken on film". Purely from the grain, the distribution of highlight and shadows, etc. I notice the difference and I'm sure 'fina art buyers do too. Its certainly possible to simulate 'film grain' and exposure characteristics from digital images. But my guess is that a discerning 'fine art' buyer (from print) would notice the difference. I this important in the 'fine ar 'market? I have no idea.

 

I agree completely that the quality and value of 'fine art prints' are independent of the' capture media' (film/digital). I also agree that in terms of the buying public, a lot of photos are bought more because of content than anything else.

 

I would only - once again- add that many images tagged as 'fine art' have IMHO little real contribution to 'art'. But if people want to buy these photos/images, that's fine by me!

 

What, in your opinion, makes them not 'fine art'?

 

When you do your comparison, are you comparing digital prints with film darkroom prints or digital prints with digitally printed film prints or digital screen images that started from a digital camera with digital screen images that started from a film camera?

 

And I'm not sure but would suspect just the opposite. If noticed at all, it's probable that a lot of fine art photo buyers notice the difference when they read it on the label and think it a matter of prestige and monetary value. I doubt most of them would see for themselves whatever supposed quality differences are asserted in the photography world.

 

My guess would be that there are many fine art digital prints of higher quality than many fine art film prints and many fine art film prints that are higher quality than many fine art digital prints. It depends on who's doing the printing.

 

In terms of the buying public, I'd say if you could narrow it down, you'd find that a lot of photos are bought more because of content than anything else, except perhaps among collectors where the name of the photographer and the potential monetization is often of utmost importance.

 

\\

What, in your opinion, makes them not 'fine art'?

 

When you do your comparison, are you comparing digital prints with film darkroom prints or digital prints with digitally printed film prints or digital screen images that started from a digital camera with digital screen images that started from a film camera?

 

And I'm not sure but would suspect just the opposite. If noticed at all, it's probable that a lot of fine art photo buyers notice the difference when they read it on the label and think it a matter of prestige and monetary value. I doubt most of them would see for themselves whatever supposed quality differences are asserted in the photography world.

 

My guess would be that there are many fine art digital prints of higher quality than many fine art film prints and many fine art film prints that are higher quality than many fine art digital prints. It depends on who's doing the printing.

 

In terms of the buying public, I'd say if you could narrow it down, you'd find that a lot of photos are bought more because of content than anything else, except perhaps among collectors where the name of the photographer and the potential monetization is often of utmost importance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

many images tagged as 'fine art' have IMHO little real contribution to 'art'

First, thanks for your further explanation.

 

What I find time and again, and you'll see it in the description I referred to in my first post above, is that "fine art" is the label for a medium that is not utilitarian in nature. My understanding is that what any work of fine art contributes to the whole and whether or not it is good or bad has nothing to do with whether or not it's "fine art." In other words, there's plenty of bad fine art just as there's plenty of bad art. It's not uncommon for people to withdraw the "art" label from things they don't like, and I understand the temptation to do so. I prefer that artists and fine artists not be thrown out of the club for producing work that's not considered good. I'd rather their work be critically assessed and judged good or bad, according to taste and other matters. But that they spend their time doing what they're doing and create what they create shouldn't be denied just because some deem it not good.

  • Like 1

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, thanks for your further explanation.

 

What I find time and again, and you'll see it in the description I referred to in my first post above, is that "fine art" is the label for a medium that is not utilitarian in nature. My understanding is that what any work of fine art contributes to the whole and whether or not it is good or bad has nothing to do with whether or not it's "fine art." In other words, there's plenty of bad fine art just as there's plenty of bad art. It's not uncommon for people to withdraw the "art" label from things they don't like, and I understand the temptation to do so. I prefer that artists and fine artists not be thrown out of the club for producing work that's not considered good. I'd rather their work be critically assessed and judged good or bad, according to taste and other matters. But that they spend their time doing what they're doing and create what they create shouldn't be denied just because some deem it not good.

It's not about being good or bad examples of their ilk. Fine Art is not art. It differs fundamentally in what it supposes to be or do. Fine Art is a showcase of craft and beauty per se. Nothing else. It has no relevance to what we do, feel or think, except that it triggers admiration. "Isn't that nice!" is the judgement that distinghuises well done Fine Art from not so well done Fine Art.

Put simplisticly, but accurate: Fine Art that is ugly or not-pleasing is not Fine Art. It is the full essence of Fine Art. There is nothing more to it. Being ugly or not-pleasing or not has no bearing at all on whether art is art or not, or whether art is good or bad art. It can be instrumental in art, but it is not essential.

 

Fine Art indeed is a label for a "medium" (it isn't a medium) that is utilitarian. Art is that too. What isn't?

"Contributing to the whole" is pretty vague. What whole? And what is its contribution to that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some say that a painting has more " intrinsic value" than a photograph and that film has more " intrinsic value" than digital...

 

That immediately shows the hollowness of thinking of those who say that. I would never take seriously someone who says painting has more value than photographs (I do both from time to time). In the same spirit, film photos are more intrinsically valued than digital is equally nonsense to me. (Not accusing you of course).

Edited by Supriyo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, thanks for your further explanation.

 

What I find time and again, and you'll see it in the description I referred to in my first post above, is that "fine art" is the label for a medium that is not utilitarian in nature. My understanding is that what any work of fine art contributes to the whole and whether or not it is good or bad has nothing to do with whether or not it's "fine art." In other words, there's plenty of bad fine art just as there's plenty of bad art. It's not uncommon for people to withdraw the "art" label from things they don't like, and I understand the temptation to do so. I prefer that artists and fine artists not be thrown out of the club for producing work that's not considered good. I'd rather their work be critically assessed and judged good or bad, according to taste and other matters. But that they spend their time doing what they're doing and create what they create shouldn't be denied just because some deem it not good.

 

There seems to be widespread heterogeneity about the characterization and scope of fine art. As you said, fine art is more about the distinction between practical utility and “art for the purpose of art alone”. Art that is solely meant to be sensed and appreciated, can include beautiful and pretty works, at the same time, it can resonate with viewers at great depths, apart from pure beauty (eye candy). “Meaningful” was a word that was also used in the Wikipedia definition, which many inattentive people gloss over, because they take their understanding of fine art from contemporary popular examples and internet.

 

Looks like, an artwork can also serve as both fine art and utilitarian, depending on the context. For example, majority of Ansel Adams’ works can be treated as fine art. At the same time, they can be considered to be utilitarian, if one thinks of them as raising public awareness for nature conservation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a person who has spent more than a little time looking into having prints made, I can say for sure that there's quite a lot of "fine art" print making going on, in pretty much all realms, digital & otherwise.

 

Cone Editions, up in Vermont, for example, according to their website, invented Pieziography and also create their own inks for inkjet printing of fine art prints. The Pieziography printing inks I believe have something like 9 different shades of black with literally over 1 million variations of tones and split tones possible.

 

I believe they altered a printer to suit there needs originally but it has all evolved by now, years later. Here are some links, read about if you like.

 

piezography | Cone Editions Press

 

Piezography History | Piezography

 

By now, I would never say (or assume) that anything exists on any sort of "only" plane. There is simply too much going on in this world, limitations are fewer now than ever before.

 

I can tell you tho that almost all of the top shelf printing labs I've looked at take your negative and drum scan it (for inkjet, pieziograhy etc prints) or create a "digital negative" via a drum scanning process- in oder to create high end inkjet prints. Yet, drum scanning is fully determined to be obsolete technology! While it remains possible to buy a drum scanner today, software and hardware availability is limited to "left overs"; nobody that I know of is making anything new for drum scanning.

 

Edit: I as at a photo exhibition at the Smithsonian a few years ago - some sort of National Geographic World Photography exhibit IIRC and I'm pretty sure it was all digital imagery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP question has been answered by people here who can express it better than me. Remember, though, that film has been around much longer than digital and the basis of the answers have had a considerably longer time to engrain themselves. I think, however, that the buyers of film-based fine art, for whatever reason, will soon/eventually die out and the current crop of buyers, raised in the digital age, won't be consuming much more than what passes for fine art at WalMart.
  • Like 2

Ian Shalapata
ipsfoto.com | info@ipsfoto.com
Freelance Multimedia Journalist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
The OP question has been answered by people here who can express it better than me. Remember, though, that film has been around much longer than digital and the basis of the answers have had a considerably longer time to engrain themselves. I think, however, that the buyers of film-based fine art, for whatever reason, will soon/eventually die out and the current crop of buyers, raised in the digital age, won't be consuming much more than what passes for fine art at WalMart.

 

You really cant make the claim that EVERYONE buying prints made from film negatives are buying the prints SOLELY on the basis of "ooo, it was taken on film i want it.."

 

MOST if not all the buyers of "fine art prints" in general, are merely buying pieces based upon the following..

 

general theme of a piece

If someone likes cats, a medium format photo of a cat on a sunny window ledge will be purchased. FAR too many buyers/collectors will simply buy based on what they already have, so if suzy has a house with a nautical decor,, all she gonna buy is nautical photos.

 

"apparent value of the artist",

ie a "banksy' scribble will always have a higher purchase, and resale value then anything Mann took with his film camera. ONLY because the media has given "banksy' a massive "retro, bad boy image" for idiots with money to buy into...

 

on resale value, the more an artists works are purchased, the value of each one goes up. And the "smart" buyers know that if they have multiples of a single persons artistic output, their collection can command a higher price tag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to film being the sign of "fine art"

 

ALL fine art programs teach the masters of fine art as painters or photographers who all used film cameras to create.

 

There are no current masters of fine art, sure there are guys in japan who made a name for themselves with film in the 1990s and have since transitioned into digital, but none are masters per se.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about being good or bad examples of their ilk. Fine Art is not art. It differs fundamentally in what it supposes to be or do. Fine Art is a showcase of craft and beauty per se. Nothing else. It has no relevance to what we do, feel or think, except that it triggers admiration. "Isn't that nice!" is the judgement that distinghuises well done Fine Art from not so well done Fine Art.

Put simplisticly, but accurate: Fine Art that is ugly or not-pleasing is not Fine Art. It is the full essence of Fine Art. There is nothing more to it. Being ugly or not-pleasing or not has no bearing at all on whether art is art or not, or whether art is good or bad art. It can be instrumental in art, but it is not essential.

 

Fine Art indeed is a label for a "medium" (it isn't a medium) that is utilitarian. Art is that too. What isn't?

"Contributing to the whole" is pretty vague. What whole? And what is its contribution to that?

 

 

 

 

Errr... I don't think so.

Edited by arthur_gottschalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...