What makes a photo a fineart work?

Or when a photo is a fineart work?

When you say it is.<p>

The better answer is when others say it is.

That is strictly a judgement of the individual members of the audience who see the

work. The photographer's opinion of the work is generally speaking, irrelevant.

Judging by the fine art critique section of photo.net, all it needs is breasts. :-)

When something clicks in the mind of the beholder.

My definition (for submitting to photo.net) is "When it doesn't fit into any of the other categories". Usually meaning, too, that the interest of the photo (or lack thereof) lies in the aesthetic appeal of the photo itself, rather than in the actual subject matter.

When at least one person or body has paid to hang this image

on their wall for reasons other than an affinity with the subject

shown or the photographer.

Well, take my thoughts here below as a personal opinion. Sometimes I write things that are already settled down, just to bring the information to the person asking for, but this time is strictly about a personal opinion.

 

So, I employ two steeps:

 

1) To determine if art or not art (so black or white), I use of two criteria: abstraction and authenticity. These are not in conflict each other, as they belong to two different dichotomies: concrete-abstract and fake-authentic. So, for me art has to be in the same time abstract and authentic.

 

2) Secondly I determine if good or bad art (here are the grays): if resonates in me at the most basic level of feelings (the mood), than it is the best art ever, but if resonates in me at the highest feelings level (the commitment) than it is just trash. With art is paradoxically reversed to what happens with the personal development: an evolved person reaches the highest levels of feelings, while the best art is the one reaching the basic level.

 

Well, this is the way it works for me.

It would help if the original poster gave some more direction to the question here, as well.

My previous post (most of which was deleted because it was a response to an also-deleted post) probably bears a little expounding upon.

 

What I'm saying is that this is a very broad question, which could go in a range of directions. "Fine Art" is largely a collecting term, but it is also a category for images here and a very broad concept in any creative discipline. It is especially tricky for photography, because so much photography lacks even artistic intent (snapshots, etc.). Thus, if you wish to describe a little further what begat the original question, that might give a direction to the post.

 

Moderator: if you wish to combine the previous post and the middle paragraph here, that would be fine. Sorry I cannot do it myself. Thanks.

Thanks for the input guys.

 

Marshall, the fact is that I want to sell my work, but I don´t want to be a professional photographer - and if I don´t want to be a pro, I think I need a clear statement of what my work represents. I don´t feel that my work should be considered fine art just because it´s black & white (or any other cliché). So I´m looking for a deeper, broad meaning to understand if it could be considered fine art or not. Maybe discovering the origin of the term "fine art photography"... BTW, do you guys know it?

"Fine Art" is a work that has been commodified - ideally as a unique original, but sometimes as a limited number of reproductions. In each case the key is the unique signature/number with which it is marked.

Felabo - Thanks for elaborating. This is just one person's opinion, of course, but perhaps the thing to do is create your own "artist's statement" about your work. What do you seek out and try to express? How do you try to accomplish it (methods)? How do you feel about what you do? What interests you in it? The statement, on its own, may or may not be interesting to your audience, but it will help focus your thinking, and you may well find yourself refining your approach, your methods, your subject matter, your work, based on that, and then you'll probably find yourself refining and changing that statement as you go on. It doesn't need to define it as "Fine Art".

 

In my mind, "Fine Art" is a collectors' term, used to classify work that is collectable (circular logic). It is also a suggestion that there is some "higher" purpose in the creation of the work. Does that truly make it "art"? Who knows. And who cares, at least until you are trying to sell it.

 

My opinion: it's interesting to discuss Fine Art in theoretical terms, but difficult to apply in practical ones. The concept defies easy definition unless you resort to the kind of logic that Hans displays in the thread he linked to. [i'd prefer not to repeat that discussion here, so I would encourage you, if you are interested (i.e., if you're really a glutton for punishment), to skim just a few posts of that overblown thread to get the gist of it, and then skip the rest.]

 

Must be tired. Rambling. Sorry...

V. 'ESCU,

My humble appologies for taking this liberty but it strikes me that some may not have understood the meaning of what you have said and I, at least, found it to be very astute. I have, in an effort for clarity and wishing to find an answere to Felabo's pertinent question, corrected some grammer and spelling so that hopefully others will see the depth of your answere to a very deep question...

 

V. 'ESCU , feb 13, 2004; 11:15 p.m.

 

So, I employ two steps:

 

 

1) To determine if an image is art or not art (i.e. black or white), I use of two criteria: abstraction and authenticity. These are not in conflict each other, as they belong to two different dichotomies: concrete-abstract and fake-authentic. So, for me art has to be at the same time abstract and authentic.

 

 

2) Secondly I determine if the image is good or bad art (here are the grays): if it resonates in me at the most ~basic~ level of "feelings" (the mood), then it is the best art ever! But if it resonates in me at the ~highest~ level of "feelings" (the commitment) then it is just trash. With art it is paradoxically reversed to what happens with the personal development: an 'evolved' person reaches the ~highest~ levels of "feelings", while the "best art" is the one reaching the ~basic~ level.

 

 

Well, this is the way it works for me.

 

This definition of art is true in all media music, theatre, oils, etc. When you can reach the most basic level of truth, this is ART.

 

Christopher says,

"Judging by the fine art critique section of photo.net, all it needs is breasts. :-)"

 

Tell me what is more beautiful than the greatest creation of GOD.

It doesn't get any more beautiful or true or artistic than the human body my friends....;)...J

You asked: "...what is more beautiful than the greatest creation of GOD. It doesn't get any more beautiful or true or artistic than the human body my friends..."

 

Well, I think there is something more beautiful: the human mind, a creation of... God's ever Competitor (see the PS)! - You know, the story with the prohibited fruit!

 

So, you see the body, but this becomes beautiful only if you see it with your mind, although it might be only a (very) "interesting" object. And I wouldn't generalize these to all bodies, nor to all minds. Ha, ha, ha...

 

PS: While not agreeing with Nietzsche's options, I have to recognize that he saw God in his "real light"...

I stand corrected...;)...J

Felabo, oddly I agree with Hans about the origin of the term Fineart photography, although I think it was more to give it some credibility because there was such a strong oppisition to calling it art.

 

However, the disinction between a Pro and a Fineart or Art photographer is easy. A Pro photographs other peoples ideas (general or detailed) for money whereas you photograph your own ideas. You are pleasing yourself first.

Hans - thanks for the explanation. I´ll try to find more information about the origin you mentioned. I visited that thread - things were really hot there!

 

John - thanks for the explanation too. I thought fine art *photography* was different from "fine art".

 

Marshall - I totally agree with you. The question just arised because some people asked me what kind of photography I´m doing. All I know is that my photography is not commercial (or professional) because I don´t have (and don´t want to have!) clients to photograph for.

 

Jay - V. ESCU´s method is pretty curious to me. But I don´t think I can rationalize like him.

 

Andy - I tried, for a very short period of my life - thanks God! - to work as a pro. I definitely want to please myself first for the rest of my life.

When you or someone else want to make a 20" print and hang it on a wall, and then wen the next generation still like it!!

At the risk of a one line answer, when the photo transcends the subject....

You will find the term "fine art photograph" used in a broad range of settings and styles. Some cannot even agree that the genre exists.

 

The distinction between high art and low art of all kinds is hotly debated among scholars these days. Until recent times, historically speaking, the difference between high and low in Western art was based on visual aesthetic values. The Modern movement added conceptual elements such as ambiguity, complexity, innovation to the list. Among other things, Postmodernism challenged the universality of visual aesthetic value and provided strong evidence that it cannot exist outside of a social or political context.

 

Proponents of Visual Culture studies might suggests that there is no longer any difference between high and low art and that all has been co-opted by commercialism.

 

There is a lot literature on the subject. If you continue to research the subject you will eventually be able to formulate your own interpretation.

"Fine Art Photograph" sounds like a good marketing term to me. Can probably find good usage on the Home Shopping Network. I notice that they have a lot of fine art jewelry, fine art wristwatches and such..I think this term automatically entitles you to charge more for what is really a total piece of crap.

(The less philosophical translation of what I said above!)

"Fine Art" is a term that is misused and misappropriated. It is not

easily definable because in the popular imagination it is associated

with art for arts sake as oppoesed to art with a social purpose.

 

So let me take a meat cleaver to the booger and suggest a working

definition. Fine Art is essentially anything that is not purely

utilitarian, like plumbing, and is created for the sake of aesthetic

enhancement of life--broadly put, of course. Photography, therefore,

is ipso facto fine art. Thus every photograph is technically fine

art.

 

If one defines fine art as only pictorialism and such one is in

error.

 

Thus if we can accept all photography as fine art we can go on to

judge each photograph on its own merits.

Alex: Warning, after that statement, Hans B. is hiding right down the street of conversation in his Panther V, shell is in the breech,waiting quietly for you while munching on some schnitzel...and listening to Lily Marlene on the Ultrakurzwelle..