Fine Art Photography

[richard_john_edwards]

<p>We often see and hear the term "Fine Art Photography" we have a catagory here on PN for "Fine Art". What does this mean, and when is an image defined as fine art? what is the difference between "Art" and "Fine Art", I would love to be enlightened on this point. PLease let me know if there is a clear boundary or if an opinion or personal viewpoint puts it into this catagory.</p>

[craigd]

<p>The difference is primarily one of pretension. I consider art photography to be any photography that results from the intention to express something artistically combined with the taste and skill to carry out that intention successfully, in contrast to thoughtless, tasteless, or incompetent photography. "Fine art" is a phrase mostly used by people who want to sell you something or critics who want to distinguish the best works from merely ordinary works. When a photographer describes his own work as "fine art" it's almost certain that his work is anything but that.</p>

[john_elder1]

<p>Many colleges issue a Bachelor of Fine Arts Degree. It is possible and or probable the the term "fine art" has the same etiology as the BFA degree. Whatever art involved, for anyone who has a BFA to refer to his or her work as fine art certainly does not mean that the work is poor as suggested by Dickson.</p>

[indraneel]

<p>From Wikipedia:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Fine art photography</strong> refers to photographs that are created in accordance with the creative vision of the photographer as artist. Fine art photography stands in contrast to photojournalism, which provides a visual account for news events, and commercial photography, the primary focus of which is to advertise products or services.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's the bin where you place your not-completely-abstract ideas. The more discerning the eye, the "fine"er the distinction...</p>

<p>Apparently, according to wikipedia, "fine" refers to purity of the media, not the quality. In the classical meaning, all photography is fine art.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

Gee Craig...sour grapes smugmug-style much? There are some truly brilliant shooters and printers out there who refer

to a body of their work as Fine Art and it is well deserved of that label. Michael Kenna is a Fine Art photographer, Geir

Jordahl is Fine Art photographer.

 

The work I offer as fine art is very limited in editions, 20 or less in a single size, is very thematic of non-commercial

work and will never be used as such, can only be purchased as "Fine Art".

 

Yes, lots of people have fine art classifications on their wonderfully amateur appearing websites and I agree, it is

anything but. So in my case, not only can you only see this work in a gallery, each image selected is strictly for fine art

sales only. I decide at the end of the day what is art and what is editorial and what is commercial and people contact

and pay me accordingly...

[pjmeade]

<p>Looking at some of the photographic galleries I've been to, whether "Fine Art" means "shot on film."</p>

[richard_john_edwards]

Some good responses, I think commercial work could be deemed, "fine art" if used after the for the purpose sale of the

image for the images sake, I think that could also be said for photo journalism . So to that end not sure I agree with

Wikipedia. So should we say if you don't hold a qualification, then it is art, but if you do hold a qualification it is fine art,

it's the term "fine" I am somewhat confused about.

[dhbebb]

<p><em>it's the term "fine" I am somewhat confused about.</em><br>

Don't be - if you had spent as long in the printing and journalism trades as I have, you'd be amazed at the kind of people with the title "artist" (for example, those skilled in pasting up page layouts or retouching technical pictures) . Fine art is simply art for art's sake, art made in pursuit of beauty or another ideal rather than for some functional purpose (which in no way means that it is not for a commercial pupose, i.e. to make money). Fine art is not necessarily good and there is no question of anyone having to like it - it's more a case of the emphasis being on having something to say rather than on craft skills. If you say it badly or imcomprehensibly, you are a bad artist. Craig I have to say is way off beam - in the pro world, an art photographer could easily be someone who photographs works of art rather than creates them. There are plenty of pretentious people around, but the label "fine art" is not the way to pick them out</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Fine art is art that is created merely to be appreciated, not for a functional purpose (such as advertising is used to sell a product, photojournalism to inform people of current events, and wildlife photography may be used to document animal behaviour and educate people). If the purpose of the work is no other than so that people can look at it and appreciate its beauty (or its ugliness), not to accomplish any other ulterior goal, then it is fine art.</p>

<p>The "fine" in "fine art" is not to reflect whether it is good or bad (fine) art, merely whether it exists subservient to another purpose than viewing pleasure.</p>

[jim_gardner4]

<p>Some very good answers there and a bad one. I admit to speed reading the posts mainly because there is no right answer. You may as well ask "what is art?" which is also a fair question. From where I am right now I can see nine photographs I have taken that are mounted and framed and on the wall. I like them all. They include a pair of old boots on paper background, three dead daffodils on slate, the hand of an African boy holdind an assegai, an unknown white flower on dark leaves, a naked girl in undergrowth, three old suitcases on paper background, clouds, oyster mushroom, an old post and wire fence. All black and white.<br>

I would call numbers one, two, poss four and definately six fine art. I think I would say this because to me it is the shape,tone,texture and simplicity that I like. Maybe the others are art, who am I to say? Yes, they are to me but I like the photograph for the subject moreso than the other reasons given above,<br>

Other people might have different choices or disagree entierly and thats fair enough. What I like is what I like and no-one can tell me what that is.<br>

Of the three photos I can see below as I type, I would call one of them fine art. I wont say which because it shoulnt matter to the photographers. If they are pleased with them, what more can they ask?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>"Fine art photography" is photography that <em>I</em> like.</p>

<p>Other work is "banal" or "boring".</p>

<p>Or sometimes, it's just "interesting."</p>

<p>Be honest with me, you really all agree with me, if you'd admit it. ;)</p>

 

[dan_south]

The term "fine arts" is used to distinguish activities that exist for the purposes of creative expression from those which

simply fulfill a need. The latter are sometimes referred to as "practical arts": cooking (non-gourmet), sewing, financial

management of a household, auto repair, carpentry, etc.

 

 

In the photography world, passport photos and yearbook photos might quality as practical art photography, whereas

images destined to hang over someone's fireplace might be better classified as fine art photography.

[MathewDH]

<p>I would like to add another distinction on the quality of fine art images.</p>

<p>One can take a lovely image that stands out from the crowd amoungst your other creations. For me, another aspect is the quality of materials that go into the making of that image. The choice and type of paper, metal, or glass that is the base for the printed image being the first. The surface texture and finish of the base material will also come into play for the final presentation. Then the choice of dyes versus pigments for the printing of the image. The goal of longevity by using quality materials at every level can enhance that view. These are the choices of the photographer that must be made in order to present a final print that will stand out from images that other photographers present.</p>

<p>I do not like gloss or textured finishes. I prefer a smoth finish with a semi-gloss or matte finish. Anything that alters the visual impact of the image is something I try to avoid. This is my preference as the photographer, and is how I present the images to the public.</p>

<p>Matting and framing are a personal choice and can be left to the buyer of the image.</p>

<p>CHEERS...Mathew</p>

[ian_gordon_bilson]

<p>Interesting - I know a number of artists . Painting,drawing ,sculpture ,etc. It is a fair bet that if I asked any of them "yes,but,would you describe yourself as a Fine Artist " I would get the 1000 yard stare.<br>

Yet, in photography,the title is common. Perhaps a hangover from the not-too-distant time when photography was the poor relation in artistic circles.</p>

[richard_john_edwards]

<p>Ian , your comment is exactly what i amtrying to resolve, painters sculptures and th elikes, ie artists do not refer to themselves as "fine Artists" yet some photographers do, Painting was the photojournalism of the past, it was the wedding image maker of the past, and it was the comercialmedium in the past.<br>

personally i dont even refer to myself as an artist, merely a photographer. Although i guess my work tosomecould be constued as art.</p>

 

[dhbebb]

<p>I call myself an art photographer merely as shorthand for "I don't do weddings and bar mitzvahs" and also "I am not a paparazzo" (this second fact should be obvious but some people have no idea how the world of photography works). I would call myself a fine art photographer only if someone was running away with the idea that I photograph other people's paintings and sculptures (as indeed I did for 2 years in my youth at the V&A Museum in London).</p>

[ian_gordon_bilson]

<p>David - I like your definition.<br>

Richard - Exactly. In my own case , I describe myself as a Photographer,specialising in landscape,still life,and portraiture.<br>

If others decide my work is Fine , I would be pleased with the distinction , but I would never claim it on my own behalf.<br>

But,if you removed pretension from Art, the field would thin out considerably.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I thought that I was just an amateur photographer taking pictures. Now that I know that since my pictures serve no functional value like reportage or advertising and are there just to be appreciated for themselves, I've become not only an Artist but a Fine Artist. Thanks for the double promotion. I can't wait to tell my wife. She's been ribbing me for wasting too much time on the photo forums.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>I can't believe someone is still beating the bloody "what's art topic" to death on three forums this month! Three hundred, plus, posts RE nudes isn't enough for just one example? </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>As for nudes, increasingly the camera p o r n shots on Classic Manual cameras have become rather <a href="

(sensuous</a>?).</p>

 

[alan_zinn]

<p>Go to the Off Topic forum and check out "Do cops make good art critics."</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>I can't believe someone is still beating the bloody "what's art topic" to death on three forums this month! Three hundred, plus, posts RE nudes isn't enough for just one example?</em><br>

Three hundred plus posts must mean someone is interested! If you're not interested. why not simply ignore these and do something else which is more to your liking?</p>

[cyanatic]

 

<blockquote>

<p>JDM von Weinberg:<br>

<em>"Fine art photography" is photography that I like.</em><br>

<em>Other work is "banal" or "boring".</em><br>

<em>Or sometimes, it's just "interesting."</em><br>

<em>Be honest with me, you really all agree with me, if you'd admit it. ;) </em></p>

</blockquote>

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

Oops, you caught me. ;-)</p>

[richard_john_edwards]

<p>I agree with David B on his last response, Alan Z, if your not interested Move on. Other may be interested, I know I certainly am.</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>A gallery owner I know suggests that the term <em>fine</em> is added to art to increase the price by 50%.</p>