Fine art photography

Discussion in 'Black and White' started by anthonymarsh, Feb 2, 2021.

  1. It would be as justifiable as the fine artist condescending to the superficiality of many critics, which the critics are whining about.
     
  2. Perhaps. But that"s yet another story.

    I think it is just and correct.
    Barry understands what Fine Art is.
     
  3. I think Barry’s understanding is of a common (in both senses of the word) caricature of what fine art is.

    My guess is many of these fine art caricatures are inspired by envy.
     
  4. Who condescended first?
    A vicious circle of patronisation and condescension maybe?

    The position we have now is that anything is allowed to be art. With the consequence that what is good, bad or 'fine' art is purely a matter of opinion or even conjecture. Therefore the 'ignorant', 'unsophisticated', neophyte, naive, apostate or reactionary opinion is just as valid as any self-appointed expert's, Sunday-supplement-pundit's or that of any of their gullible acolyte's.
     
  5. The caricaturists.

    The so-called condescension of fine artists is a figment of the imagination of bystanders to art, who often don’t produce art but like to bellow and joke about its “flaws.”

    Fine artists are busy refining their crafts and visions while supposed critics languish in obscurity pondering gear and technical details but unable to explore creatively themselves or appreciate what better artists are doing.

    So they poke fun. It’s a defense mechanism.
     
  6. And that's a caricature of the observation that some artists are only concerned about refining their crafts, mistaking that for creativity.
     
  7. The phrase put up or shut up comes to mind.

    At a certain point, words without any work to back them up ring hollow, especially when we’re talking about actually making art, fine or otherwise.

    2-abstracts-ww.jpg
    the treachery.............of subtext......
     
  8. You carefully (or carelessly) neglected to paraphrase me completely, leaving out the vision part, which might be where you would have found the creativity you missed.
     
  9. That there is some sort of vision involved in Fine Art, Sam, is your supposition. My remark is about Fine Art. Not about what you think it is.
     
  10. And that fine art lacks vision is your (mis)understanding.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2021
  11. Anyway, as there’s no evidence that you’re a practicing photographer or artist, and as your thoughts come across as theoretical and not experiential, I’ll forego further conversation with you. I think it’s more fruitful to dIscuss these things from a more personally-derived and practical standpoint, neither of which I get from talking to you. Adios.
     
  12. Jeans.jpg
    Insert pretentious title here.
     
  13. The_impossibility_blah.jpg
    The impossibility of erectile dysfunction in the mind of someone virile.

    Homage_Rose_Selavy.jpg
    Homage to Rose Selavy #1.

    I hope the sub-text isn't too subtle!
     
  14. That's the definitive final argument. We'll turn it into another internet meme, call it Steve's law.
     
  15. Let's just say a photo is "fine art" if it hangs on your wall for a long time without you ever feeling the urge to take it down
     
  16. How about Lewis Baltz, an artist-photographer who claimed he had no interest in photography but established himself as a very successful fine art photographer using very basic techniques coupled with a few great ideas. He came to prominence in the New Topographics . show at Eastman House in 1975, a show that included Robert Adams, Nicholas Nixon and Stephen Shore among others. His most well-known series (he always worked in series) was a study of Park City Utah as it was being developed as a resort. His concept was to remove all "aesthetic" considerations from his pictures, with the intention of letting the camera make the picture directly with minimum input from him. His technique, shooting in 35mm with a 35mm lens, always on a tripod, was to use the slowest film available to him at ISO 6, stopping down to the smallest aperture available for maximum clarity and depth of field. Yet IMHO, he was a great fine art photographer, based on a very good concept and excellent execution. Was his work devoid of "aesthetic" content? I think the very goal of removing it was a very clear aesthetic statement. And I do think his rather small prints are very beautiful.
     
  17. There may have been aesthetic content in what he was shooting rather or more so than how he was shooting it.

    Or just . no frills.
    An aesthetic statement may be different from aesthetic content.

    Your observation reminds me of a great quote I recently came across ...

    “Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, 'atheism' is a term that should not even exist. No one needs to identify himself as a 'non-astrologer' or a 'non-alchemist.' We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.”
    —Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

    So, maybe Baltz's so-called aesthetics is a kind of atheism.
     
  18. BTW, Baltz printed everything at Grade 2.

    And I think the problem of atheism is much more complex than a simple belief in God. It's more like, a belief in God generates the existence of God.
     
  19. Atheism isn’t the problem. God is.

    Anyway, I’d hoped it would be evident that the quote was meant as analogy, to respond to your questions about aesthetics, not to directly address theology.
     
  20. Vincent Peri

    Vincent Peri Metairie, LA

    Hmm... God isn't the prob-
    lem... HUMANS are...
    [​IMG]
     
    q.g._de_bakker likes this.

Share This Page