Is your Photography Fine Art

[danielheller]

<p>Curious to find out what the members here consider their Photography to be.<br>

Fine Art? and only that (with no other intent or purpose)<br>

or<br>

Documentation? Expression? Exploration? Capture? etc. etc., ...but, which is also "Fine Art".</p>

 

[Charles_Webster]

<p>No</p>

<p>My photography is craft. Finely crafted to satisfy my commercial customers. Nothing more or less. I have no illusions about creating "art"</p>

<p><Chas><br /><br /></p>

[William Kahn]

<p>While I may see an occasional piece as "fine art", I think it's pretentious to present it that way. But, if others want to regard it as such, that's, uh, fine with me...</p>

[DrBen]

<p>The visual arts fall into two categories: fine arts and applied (useful) arts.<br>

Fine art is valued for its aesthetics and for the viewing pleasure of the beholder.<br>

Applied (useful) art is valued for its practical uses.<br>

However, what may be useful art for the creator may be considered fine art by others. A scientist may take electron microscope photos of molecules as a practical way of studying their atomic structure. For him, the photos are applied art (the application of photography to scientific research). However, in some cases, others may find such photos visually satisfying and consider them works of great beauty.<br>

Medieval stained glass windows have always been considered as works of fine art but the main purpose for which they were created was to teach religion to illiterate people (and to fill the holes made to lighten the stone wall structures of churches. Thus they were always also works of applied art.<br>

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. From that point of view, it doesn't really matter what a photographer thinks of his own work (even if he aspires to create photos that are aesthetically pleasing). It is the opinion of those who see and react to his photos that determines whether they will be deemed to be works of fine art.</p>

[Brad_]

Mine are just snaps...

[bethe_fisher]

<p>I'm starting to think too many photographers try too hard to not call their photographs "Art." Why? What's so bad about calling something Art? In the early days of photography, they fought tooth and nail with painters to say photography was art. I think "Art" vs "Fine Art" is a false distinction, but that's my opinion. <br>

With my photos, it depends. Some just document something, others are more finely crafted and get hung on the wall - I call those Art. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Bethe +1</p>

<p>Doctors don't hesitate to call themselves doctors. Plumbers don't hesitate to call themselves plumbers. Teachers don't hesitate to call themselves teachers. I'm not sure why someone should be deemed pretentious for calling himself or herself an artist.</p>

[User_5888660]

<p>Why is it a false distinction to differentiate painting, sculpture and photography et. al. (fine arts) from religion, philosophy and mathematics et.al. (the arts)? </p>

[dan_south]

<p>I create different types of photographs. Some of my photos document places or events. Some are portraits. Some show views of products to potential buyers. Some are designed to hang on walls and inspire, intrigue, or captivate viewers.</p>

<p>This last category I refer to as fine art photography, because that's what find art images do. They hang on walls and inspire, intrigue, or captivate viewers.</p>

<p>If someone doesn't think that my photos constitute fine art, I accept that. I am happy to leave other people in charge of their own thoughts. :-)</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>To describe my work I like to use term: "Artistic photography" </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"A frequently used but somewhat vague term. The idea underlying it is that the producer of a given picture has aimed at something more than a merely realistic rendering of the subject, and has attempted to convey a personal impression". - from Wikipedia</p>

</blockquote>

[rossb]

Snaps

[sarah_fox]

<p>Interesting question. So let's say I create a photo that has no utility whatsoever. It doesn't document anything, demonstrate anything, illustrate anything, or achieve any other "useful" purpose. Rather, it's just an interesting image that at which at least one person (myself) enjoys looking -- something of worth purely for its aesthetic value. Then haven't I created a piece of fine art (not necessarily a good one)?</p>

[Palouse]

<p>Depends who wants to buy it, right?</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Then haven't I created a piece of fine art (not necessarily a good one)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Art has no utility except to stir the senses and/or imagination. The ability to do so will vary by observer. Some people are moved by the work of Ansel Adams, for instance, and many people find it utterly uninteresting.<br /> <br /> Therefore, if the photo that you have created stirs your senses or your imagination, then it's art to you. There is no more rational definition for the term art, because the concept of art is not entirely rational in the first place.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I call mine journal entries. Someone else is free to call them fine art. Especially if she's a wealthy CEO, gallery owner or museum curator.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Snaps. If Ellen von Unwerth calls her art "snaps," so can I.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Dan:</strong> <em>"Art has no utility except to stir the senses and/or imagination."</em></p>

<p>Dan, I can't completely agree with this, even though it does pertain in many, and perhaps the majority of, cases. Because a lot of art does have utility and derives its significance from such utility. So many of the wold's cathedrals are works of art and serve as houses of worship. Leni Riefenstahl's photos and films of Hitler and the Nazi army were created as and utilized for propaganda and are every bit as much art. Ancient pottery was created to be implements for practical usage and yet we honor it in museums as art. Much great photography was utilized to document living conditions in the US (the work of the FSA photographers, for example) and is, at the same time, art.</p>

<p><em>"</em><em>The architect should strive continually to simplify; the ensemble of the rooms should then be carefully considered that comfort and utility may go hand in hand with beauty."</em><br />—Frank Lloyd Wright</p>

[danielheller]

<p>"...So let's say I create a photo that has no utility whatsoever. It doesn't document anything, demonstrate anything, illustrate anything, or achieve any other "useful" purpose..." Rather, it's just an interesting image that at which at least one person (myself) enjoys looking -- something of worth purely for its aesthetic value. Then haven't I created a piece of fine art (not necessarily a good one)?..."</p>

<p>Sarah, every image:<br>

...documents something (in a broad sense)<br>

...illustrates something<br>

...and does achieve a useful purpose (if imagined well)<br>

You are pleasing the eye. Your eye, and if you are lucky some other people's eye as well.<br>

That is the "utility" or function of ART, and yes, then, you did create a piece of art.</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

<p>Fred, I would suggest that architecture is a special case, as buildings have more utility than paintings and plays and photographs do. I can't live or work inside of a photograph.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Dan, architecture IS a special case. But photos as well can have utility and can be art simultaneously, and have been.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Not all architecture is art...</p>

<p><a href="http://cdn.inman.com/files/imagefield/flickr_pinkmoose_SUBURBAN_POSTWAR_HOUSE.jpg">http://cdn.inman.com/files/imagefield/flickr_pinkmoose_SUBURBAN_POSTWAR_HOUSE.jpg</a></p>

<p>But some is...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.civicartsproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Queensgate_Cincinnati_Ohio_CAPAHU0003.jpg">http://www.civicartsproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Queensgate_Cincinnati_Ohio_CAPAHU0003.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.usafa.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/111027-F-ZJ145-101.jpg">http://www.usafa.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/111027-F-ZJ145-101.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://static.asiawebdirect.com/m/phuket/portals/china-hotels-ws/homepage/tours/beijing/beijing-art-architecture/tourParagraphs/04/image1/beijing-art-architecture-gal01.jpg">http://static.asiawebdirect.com/m/phuket/portals/china-hotels-ws/homepage/tours/beijing/beijing-art-architecture/tourParagraphs/04/image1/beijing-art-architecture-gal01.jpg</a></p>

 

[Norman 202]

Communication.

[will_daniel1]

<p>I think if you look at my two books, you would not consider the 250 riverscape photographs in each to be fine art. I think if you read the 22,000 or so words I wrote for each, you might not consider that fine art. But I think the finished product, which includes a terrific design by my publisher, is overall a work of art. I'm proud of both books; info at <a href="http://www.willdaniel.com">www.willdaniel.com</a>.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>My photography is craft</strong></em>. Finely crafted to satisfy my commercial customers. Nothing more or less. I have no illusions about creating "art"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>...is the correct answer. Well said, Charles.</p>

[gary_leonard3]

<p>Vincent Van Gogh's own mother used to take the paintings he made and sent to her and used them to fill in the holes in her backyard fence. Who says art is not good for anything? A Duesenberg car is art but you can drive to the store for a six pack of beer if you want. Or, buy Champagne if you are the "artistic" type. I have photos of celebrities (Elvis, the Beatles, etc.) that were photojournalism in the 1960s and 1970s and are now hanging in art galleries.<br>

I don't think this is a topic that will be decided by us right here. History will decide, and it will probably get it wrong.</p>