Difference between Art and Fine Art

[kkeller]

Hello hope everyone is doing well. I am a student at the Art Institute of Pittsburgh. Recently I was at a portfolio review and a comment was made that got me wondering what the difference was between Art and Fine Art or what makes Art; Fine Art. I have some ideas and have asked some of my Instructors at school but would like to get some other input. Thanks for your time.

[Joanna Carter]

Personally, I have a slightly cynical view of what people call art ;)

Art - that which artists, including photographers, create; and that most people appreciate as artistic.

Fine Art - that which artists create; and which either has to be explained by the artist, or becomes the subject of elitist postulation as to its meaning.

:D :D :D

[Greg Lockrey]

(((:eek:)))(((:eek:)))(((:eek:)))

Oh No! Not another "what is art?" thread.

The difference between art and fine art is how sharp the pencil is. :D

Or.... how about the difference between color and b&w photography?

[Mike1234]

Fine art is finer than your common mundane art which is unfine. :)

[Tim Meisburger]

fine are is more expensive than course art

[Gem Singer]

In the world of photography, an "artist" is a person who photographs landscapes, seascapes, trees, and rocks.

A "fine art" photographer is one who photographs nudes.

[jnanian]

there is no difference
unless someone suggests
there is ... mainly marketing hype

[Michael Graves]

Art is inkjet.

Fine art is silver salt prints.

(Sorry....just had to do that.)

[Greg Lockrey]

Art is inkjet.

Fine art is silver salt prints.

(Sorry....just had to do that.)

Oh no.... Carbon Transfers. :)

[jb7]

Art is inkjet.

Fine art is silver salt prints.

(Sorry....just had to do that.)


I thought fine art was Gicleé...

[Donald Miller]

Art is pictures of hens and frogs. Fine art is pictures of hen's teeth and frog's hair.

[John Kasaian]

Art is pictures of hens and frogs. Fine art is pictures of hen's teeth and frog's hair.

ROFLMAO!:D

[Scott Knowles]

I thought art was when you dressed casually to show your prints to friends and family and fine art was when you dressed stylishly for your showing at an art gallery.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Oh no.... Carbon Transfers. :)

Yes, this one!

Jim

[Jim Galli]

The difference is calculated by magnitude of bull s**t. But now you have to establish what a magnitude is.

[Nathan Potter]

Another question about the indistinguishable. Like trying to define the difference between "pixie dust" and "fairy foo". :D

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[EdWorkman]

You all are pedestrians
It's art and Fines Arte, and Fines Arte, or Artes is, as JG pointed out identified by how much Merde de Bools is involved- and, accounta I'm also a pedestrian, I can't properly italicize FA and MdB which is de rigoooer in the Fines Artes circle

[paulr]

I like the more democratic definition. It also happens to be the more classical one ... they're not often the same.

"Fine" art is to to distinguish something from the classical liberal arts, or performing arts, or applied arts. Like rhetoric, logic, music, astronomy, etc. etc...

Which means something doesn't need to be "fine," or some other pretentious designation, to be a fine art. It means it's visual, and intended to be looked at in certain ways or for certain reasons. It can still be crap!

[aduncanson]

How about "Art" is a more inclusive term encompassing both "Fine Art" and "Folk Art". To better understand subtleties of that distinction, consider the two examples of "Fine Art" and "Folk Art", respectively, below. As unclear as that may be, in photography it seems even more vague.

I suspect that for those in the field, the ultimate distinction has to do with the ambitions and the education or academic credentials of the practitioner.

[Kirk Gittings]

Hello hope everyone is doing well. I am a student at the Art Institute of Pittsburgh. Recently I was at a portfolio review and a comment was made that got me wondering what the difference was between Art and Fine Art or what makes Art; Fine Art. I have some ideas and have asked some of my Instructors at school but would like to get some other input. Thanks for your time.

Kevin,

Good question, one I contemplated allot when I was a student too and am still to this day trying to figure this issue out. It is hard to define because we live in an artistic environment which attacks neat definitions and tries to destroy conceptual boundaries. So really the best I can do is give some personal reflections.

I think the Wikipedia definition is a good starting point though:

Fine art describes any art form developed primarily for aesthetics and/or concept rather than utility.[1] This type of art is often expressed in the production of art objects[2] using visual and performing art forms, including painting, sculpture, music, dance, theater, architecture, photography and printmaking. Schools, institutes, and other organizations still use the term to indicate a traditional perspective on the art forms, often implying an association with classic or academic art.

In my own lexicon, as both a commercial and "fine art" photographer, I find the first sentence of the WP definition to have some merit. Though the boundaries are certainly not distinct, in my commercial work as an architectural photographer, much of what I do is find ways to illustrate the aesthetic ideas of my clients ie interpret someone else's art. I am oftentimes trying to get into the head of my client and create images that are artistic but useful (have some utility) to them in design competitions, proposals slide shows etc. Aesthetics and illustration must be balanced lest you stray too far from your clients needs. Vice versa if you don't pay attention to aesthetics then you create boring documents, which may not "sell" your clients work well. At the far aesthetic edge of this commercial work are those clients who want me to just go out and "do what I do", which means to interpret their work aesthetically. See this Abstraction (http://kirkgittingsphotography.blogspot.com/2009/07/abstraction-in-architectural.html) thread in my blog. When doing this image last week of the modern wing at the Art Institute of Chicago, my assistant remarked somehing like "that looks allot better than the building actually is". To which I said this is more like advertising photography than documentary". A former student of mine, he does HABS documentation and is quite good at it. Actually in all fairness the Modern Wing at AIC is an extraordinary design and photographs are hard pressed to do it justice.

http://www.sitewelder.com/users/KirkGittings2359/images/KirkGittings2359809368.jpg

An effective commercial architectural image illustrates and sells the clients creations. It is all art but different in concept and approach and intent than my personal work which when successful I refer to as my Fine Art. The fine art is intended primarily for aesthetic contemplation, though there is a visual reality to work from and oftentimes there is a descriptive intent such as trying to bring to life the spirit of a particular place. Aesthetic contemplation is a kind of utility but far more personal than public as in my commercial work. The FA work also illustrates but it is illustrating my feelings about a place as much as its visual reality, which leads me to much manipulation of tone etc that exceeds documentation. So aesthetic contemplation, strictly speaking of is role in my life has a more profound purpose and personal utility and I distinguish that as my Fine Art.

There are huge areas where my own definitions don't hold much water. For example I have been part of city public arts commission projects with fairly strict limits on subject matter. Is this commercial illustration or fine art? I have struggle to accomplish the latter while honoring the boundaries set by the city/client. Many observers of my work don't see my distinction between commercial illustration and fine art and see the commercial work equally as creative as the FA and the FA work equally as grounded in real time and place as the commercial work. Also ironically, some of my favorite FA work has come out of HABS documentation projects. For me it is a personal distinction that helps me focus on what is important in each endeavor, but not an aesthetic straight jacket.

Just some of my personal views on the subject based on my own work............and an example of the personal FA work, the upper Morada in Abiquiu. Does any of that make any sense Kevin?

http://www.sitewelder.com/users/KirkGittings2359/images/KirkGittings2359674330.jpg

[Bill_1856]

Difference between Art and Fine Art = $$$$$$$

[Brian Ellis]

Search - Google, Bing, Yahoo, wherever. You'll find far more and better information than you're likely to get here. Hell, some people here think art is defined by the medium used to make it.

[paulr]

Difference between Art and Fine Art = $$$$$$$

But which is which?

Most of the fine artists I know have to pay their bills by doing commercial art!

[Bruce Watson]

Hello hope everyone is doing well. I am a student at the Art Institute of Pittsburgh. Recently I was at a portfolio review and a comment was made that got me wondering what the difference was between Art and Fine Art or what makes Art; Fine Art. I have some ideas and have asked some of my Instructors at school but would like to get some other input. Thanks for your time.

It's a legitimate question; I'm not sure that I can answer it but I'll give it a shot. I'm sure others will let me know if I succeed or fail in my attempt. :rolleyes:

I think perhaps the difference between art and fine art is that fine art makes some kind of connection to the viewer. It makes you stop and look at it, pay attention to it. It evokes some kind of response from the viewer. Sometimes it manages to transcend it's purpose -- the portraits of John Singer Sargent come to mind. Compare his oils to some of the portraits adorning old houses in England for example. Where most are documentation of the people who built and lived in the houses, Sargent manages to transcend mere documentation to become fine art.

So to a large extent it's up to the skill and intent of the artist. Kirk Gittings is a good example on this forum (sorry Kirk). He's a guy who has the skill to transcend "mere" architectural work and make fine art, and when he has the time and inclination on an assignment, the evidence says he does. He must have some happy clients.

So I guess I'm thinking that the key word here to describe the difference between art and fine art is "transcendence." But really, it's a very difficult definition to make.

[Joanna Carter]

... Hell, some people here think art is defined by the medium used to make it.
Now, I wonder you could be thinking about ;)

[Steve M Hostetter]

,fine art: an activity requiring a fine skill...

[Ken Lee]

In spite of what we have been taught in school, defining things can be over-rated. Even when they are defined, some things remain a mystery.

Take for example, Euclid (http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookI/bookI.html)'s first definition, of a Point: "A point is that which has no part."

All of Mathematics and Science is based on that definition, but has anyone ever found something which has no part ?

[Mark Sawyer]

I suppose there are similar arguments in other circles about the difference between "Eating" and "Fine Dining", or "Cars" and "Fine Automobiles". "Art" is just a generalized term for any sort of vaguely aesthetic or picturesque work, be it fine art, commercial art, graphic art, decorative art, even the merely descriptive and documentary...

"Fine Art" deals with the deeper philosophic, aesthetic, and human issues of what Douglas Adams summed up as "life, the universe, and everything".

I think the real difference is that Fine Art is harder to get off your shoes if you step in it...

[John Jarosz]

It's a legitimate question;


I don't know if it is. 'Course it's my opinion, but

I don't believe the artist gets to decide. The only test that establishes if something is art or not is the test of time. You have to ask the question: Does the object, photo, music, painting, poetry, story appeal to a wide variety of people over a broad section of time? That consensus may be slow in coming, but it's the one that counts. Otherwise, the "art" may be wildly popular today, but gets discarded when new "art" is shown.

John

[bvstaples]

I personally don't like to define things, because it then limits them. And, as you can see by the response to this thread, 29 of us (at this point) have 29 different definitions. But if I had to define them, here's my take:

Art is the practice of something that we must do. We pactice the art of photography, while other practice the art of watercolors, or medicine, or philosophy, or whatever. Art is what we do and what we make.

Fine art is when we become so practiced at it that the way we do it and what we make from it is admired not only by all, but is especially held in high esteem by those most knowledgeable, those who practice the same art as us.

Just my humble opinion, and every one is entitled to it!

Brian

[mark anderson]

All of Mathematics and Science is based on that definition, but has anyone ever found something which has no part ?

what is your point ;-)

[Ken Lee]

Ouch ! ;)

[kkeller]

Thank You Bruce, what you said tracks with most of the answers I have gotten at school.

[Mark Sawyer]

I don't know if it is. 'Course it's my opinion, but

I don't believe the artist gets to decide. The only test that establishes if something is art or not is the test of time. You have to ask the question: Does the object, photo, music, painting, poetry, story appeal to a wide variety of people over a broad section of time? That consensus may be slow in coming, but it's the one that counts. Otherwise, the "art" may be wildly popular today, but gets discarded when new "art" is shown.

John


Just my opinion too, of course, but I'll respectfully disagree. It's the artist's intention when the piece is created that defines it as Fine Art. The most extreme example I can think of is DuChamp's decision that his "Ready-Mades" were Fine Art that made them Fine Art, even though a moment before, the same urinal was just a urinal.

(Mind you, sometimes the historians, collectors, and critical audiences take it upon themselves to bestow the "Fine Art" laurels on works by some, like Timothy O'Sullivan, after the fact upon their decision that his work had sufficient aesthetic qualities to belong among other Fine Art photographs.)

What time, or the later consensus of art historians and collectors, decides, is whether a piece is good Fine Art, or bad Fine Art. With the popular touch of cynicism towards the Artist's claim of a work to be a "Fine Art", there's at least the appearance of pretention inflicted on a piece so ambitiously defined. So while the best pieces can aspire to higher heights, the failures can fall to embarrassingly low depths...

[Robert Hall]

In China I was held to be a Fine Artist of a most professional status.

Of course this was bestowed upon me by those kind folk only because of the size of my gear.

I knew there was something to that larger negative!

[percepts]

"Fine" ?

[paulr]

I suppose there are similar arguments in other circles about the difference between "Eating" and "Fine Dining", or "Cars" and "Fine Automobiles".

There are, and if you look at those fields, you find interesting definitions.

"Fine dining" is a good one. It refers to a level of formality, and the expectations that go along with that. It doesn't actually mean the food is great. If you went to Alain Ducasse and had a lousy meal, it would still be a fine dining experience. But a crappy one! The style of the place, the structure of the menu, the service, the presentation of the food, all of the trappings, define the restauant as fine dining. These also strongly influence your expectations.

Art is one of the cases where we have different groups using different definitions. Some use "fine art" to mean "really good art." I happen to think this is a useless definition, but people use it, so there you go.

There's also the classical definition that i mentioned, which distinguishes it from the liberal and performing and applied arts.

And then, there's the term "fine art photography," which in some circles has come to mean something specific about style and tradition. Edward Weston fits the description of a "fine art photographer." So does a contemporary hobbyist who likes to take pictures in Weston's style. But someone like Andreas gursky, while considered both a fine artist and a photographer, doesn't get called a "fine art photographer," at least not in this sense. In terms of style and tradition, he comes from somewhere else.

I find this last definition really annoying. But I've seen it used a lot over the last decade or so. It's worth knowing that some people use the term like this, so you can avoid confusing them when describing your work.

[rdenney]

I suspect that fist-fights are the only logical outcome of describing the difference between "art" and "fine art" in terms of quality. There can be no difference in the quality between folk art and fine art, but they do serve a different, though related purpose.

And I think art itself is defined by how it is received as much as by how it is intended, though its reception will be strongly influenced by how it is presented, and that is related to the artist's intent.

To me, the relevant distinction is between fine art and folk art, which is the same distinction as between a diner and fine dining. I don't think that even the most accomplished chef would claim that one is better than the other--most I have heard talk have tremendous respect for well-crafted cooking done by ordinary people in ordinary situations. But they are seeking to create an experience beyond that--one that transcends one's normal experience. So, when I go to a fine dining restaurant, I dress better than I normally might, I expect white table cloths, polished silverware, good china, excellent services, and flavors that are beyond my normal experience (not necessarily better).

So, fine art is something that people create to provide a transcendent art experience. It is designed to elevate them to some new consciousness. When a folk artists make a creation, they don't have that purpose. Their purpose is to reveal some (perhaps unexplored) inner value of a familiar subject or approach rather than to transcend the familiar completely.

I doubt that I intend much of my art as fine art, and I doubt that any of it would be received as such. When I studied art, my focus was always on revealing how things were, perhaps with a fresher or deeper perspective or the intent to express my emotional response to that reality, but still within the constraints of the real and familiar. I think photography depends on that connection, but that's a personal bias.

The difference to me is something artists ponder when determining how they will approach their patrons, and I think it affects their approach to presentation and marketing in the extreme.

But there is no point in trying to say one is better than the other, or even that any given work of art is wholly one or the other.

From my college days, I remember when those in fine arts programs would look down their noses at the "artsy-craftsy" people doing the utilitarian arts, and clearly "artsy-craftsy" was intended as an insult. Oh, well. Most of them didn't transcend anything.

Rick "a mere photographic illustrator" Denney

[paulr]

It's the artist's intention when the piece is created that defines it as Fine Art. The most extreme example I can think of is DuChamp's decision that his "Ready-Mades" were Fine Art that made them Fine Art, even though a moment before, the same urinal was just a urinal.

Yes, and I think it's worth remembering that this happened in 1917, and has had a profound effect on almost everything in modern art since. It's not radical; it's very old news!


(Mind you, sometimes the historians, collectors, and critical audiences take it upon themselves to bestow the "Fine Art" laurels on works by some, like Timothy O'Sullivan, after the fact ...

Right. And I think this is closely related to your first point. Duchamp's urinal and snow shovel became art specifically because people looked at them as such. The power was in the eyes of the viewers. Duchamp's intent played a part in this, but only to the extent that he got the works hung in a museum. Duchamp wrote the invitation; the viewers came, looked at the installation as art, and judged it as such.

Of course, a lot of viewers hated it and were outraged. But at this point Duchamp had already won ... because the viewers hated it as art, not as utilitarian objects. No one gets outraged by a snow shovel at the hardware store!



What time, or the later consensus of art historians and collectors, decides, is whether a piece is good Fine Art, or bad Fine Art.

Exactly. Is my snow shovel "good" fine art? I doubt it. If I hang it on the gallery wall, it will become art, because YOU will look at it as such. This is actually a double-edged sword and a big risk for me. Because if it doesn't work (and I'm betting it won't) then you'll judge me--as a bad artist, a Duchamp wannabe, or as a pretentious douchebag. When a minute ago I was just a nice guy with a snow shovel.

[Duane Polcou]

What I find interesting is how many photographers need to add adjectives preceding the word "photography" in order to sell the concept that what they are doing is considered art, when in fact some of the greats of the twentieth century were loathe to use these expressions. Edward Weston was said to have crossed out the word "artist" in a printed piece referencing a showing of his work , and replaced it with "photographer".

[Jim Galli]

As usual, I find Mark's definition the most helpful. Recently the Classic Car Club of America stopped overnight in our desolate burg. At their web site I learned that only those with "fine" automobiles need apply. There's a .pdf list for those of us too ignorant to be in the 'know'. The word 'fine' seems to have a not-needed-to-be-defined air about it that seperates the can haves, from the can'ts.

[paulr]

What I find interesting is how many photographers need to add adjectives preceding the word "photography" in order to sell the concept that what they are doing is considered art, when in fact some of the greats of the twentieth century were loathe to use these expressions. Edward Weston was said to have crossed out the word "artist" in a printed piece referencing a showing of his work , and replaced it with "photographer".

Weston was working at a time when photographers were fighting hard for some kind of identity and acceptance.

They just couldn't agree on what kind of identity or acceptance they wanted (hmmm ... photographers disagreeing over stuff no one else cares about ... how weird!)

Some were hell bent on being seen as artists, whatever that word might have meant to them. Among these were the photographers who did everything they could to mimic painters.

Weston was among the ones with an equal and opposite pretention ... declaring that he was no artist, by God, but a Photographer (whatever that might have meant to him ...)

We don't have to fight as vehemently as they did, because ideas and identities have settled down so much. Mostly thanks to those guys being passionate about working it out back then.

[Steven Barall]

A Rolls Royce is art and a Gremlin is fine art. Really it's just things that people say to make themselves feel important. There is no real definition for these terms and I think you would be much better off if you just ignored them all together. If someone handed you a business card that said "Genius", what would you think about that person? It just sounds so ridiculous. Apply that same standard to someone who proclaims that they are a Fine Artist or that they are a photographer who makes fine art.

Just be comfortable being a photographer and don't feel the need to go any further than that. Photography is good all by itself, it doesn't need anyone's help. There are no standards in things that are purely subjective. Trust yourself, lighten up and live a little. Cheers.

[Brian Sims]

Woody Allen provided the answer to the difference between art and fine art when he explained the difference between porn and erotica......it's the lighting.

[mandoman7]

I managed to sell 5-20x24 "fine-art prints" last week, which was a most welcome event. All of the images were taken before 1995, and they seem to be becoming more "fine" with each passing year.

Much of the artistry, actually, had to do with how the transaction was managed, something I've become better at since I dated a successful art dealer. How the work gets presented can make or break the deal in most cases, and that's a matter of estimating what people need to see to reach for their checkbook. These concerns are somewhat distinct from those relating to the integrity of the work.

I have a lot of friends who are painters and sculptors, and I don't hear these kinds of discussions in that crowd very often. It seems to mainly be photographers who are concerned with the "legitimacy" of their craft, not the ceramicist who's cranking out large plates, or the glass blower and his vases. They want their work to be of high quality but they let others do the assessments of whether its artistic or not.

In my estimation (as a photographer), the quality of an artist's work is defined by the extent to which they are ready to fully invest themselves in the process of creation. That means learning about the difference between DERIVATIVE work and that which is truly a personal exploration. It also means really looking at what you're doing and why.

You can have the greatest outfit ever discussed on this forum and work with analog materials, making wet plate prints, etc., but if you're going to shoot from Ansel's positions at Yosemite, then its something other than a creative process IMO. Its the beginning of artistic exploration, at best.

Not that those images aren't beautiful and valid for what they are. There are galleries, in fact, that sell a lot of that stuff. Its just that there's a difference between something that's just a restatement of another's idea, and something that represents a legitimate personal exploration. The distinction may seem elusive or vague in the day to day, but as time goes on, those who's work was truly original and well done eventually get their due recognition.

[Ben Syverson]

"Fine" art is to to distinguish something from the classical liberal arts, or performing arts, or applied arts. Like rhetoric, logic, music, astronomy, etc. etc...
Paul nails it! "Fine art" is a subset of The Arts. As a term, it's used to reinforce and clarify that you mean painting, drawing, etc, and not, for example, poetry or dance. Sometimes people use the outdated term "visual art" in place of "fine art," but it's less useful, as it excludes conceptual and sound art.

Personally I cringe when I hear someone use the term "fine artist," because it's redundant; people understand what you mean if you simply say "artist." Calling yourself a "fine artist" is like calling yourself an "unwed single." The "unwed" or "fine" is superfluous.

The only time the term "fine art" should be used instead of "art" is when there's a reasonable possibility for confusion, as in the "Fine Arts Building" at many universities. If you're using "fine art" in a gallery or art context, there's a 99% chance you're being redundant, and unwittingly annoying me. ;)

[rdenney]

The only time the term "fine art" should be used instead of "art" is when there's a reasonable possibility for confusion, as in the "Fine Arts Building" at many universities. If you're using "fine art" in a gallery or art context, there's a 99% chance you're being redundant, and unwittingly annoying me. ;)

They call the building at a college "Fine Arts" to distinguish it from, say, "Industrial Arts" (and my university had such a build and a degree program to go with it). I don't think that's the same as Paul's distinction between eating and fine dining. I think the difference is doing it for its own sake rather than doing it because it needs to be done. I eat sometimes because I'm hungry, and if the food is not inspiring it still staves off starvation. For years I have called that "industrial eating"--eating for the mere purpose of nourishment. Fine dining, on the other hand, is when I go to eat something for the sake of eating well, and the chef (not the cook) prepares it for the sake of being consumed for that purpose. I don't go to a fine dining establishment merely to avoid starvation--that will waste the experience.

I haven't really thought this through, but I wonder if the difference between "art" and "fine art" is like the difference between "physics" and "theoretical physics", and if the difference between "fine art" and "folk art" is the same as the difference between "theoretical physics" and "applied physics", or (in the old days) between "physics" and "engineering".

One of the things that separates photographers is whether they have a reason to make photographs other than the desire to make photographs. Lots of people have cameras and document their current world. Some do it with considerable elegance and even devotion to craft. But it's still "folk art"--it's an expression, however elegant, that at the least has roots in a utilitarian purpose--documentation. As I said before, I think photography loses its essence if we depart that altogether, but I'm sure some will disagree. Other photographers make photographs solely for the sake of making photographs. Their motivation is the same as someone who paints a scene--something about the scene compels them to express it.

I'm quite sure that distinction won't work in the heady world of fine art.:)

Rick "thinking the old term "industrial arts" shows how much the language has changed" Denney

[Ben Syverson]

They call the building at a college "Fine Arts" to distinguish it from, say, "Industrial Arts"
Correct, and that is the proper use of the term. "Fine art" does not mean "great art;" it refers to the branch of the Arts that we (in contemporary English anyway) call "art."

"Fine art" actually has an entry in most dictionaries, so I encourage everyone to look it up. You will find an additional sense that's unrelated to art ("he has beer pong down to a fine art"), but nowhere will you find a sense that reads "especially good or exemplary art" or anything to that effect.

People using "fine art" to mean "really good art" are misusing the term, no two ways about it. The worst part is that a lot of them have aspirations to "higher" culture, and would be horrified if they knew their misuse made them look like rubes.

[John Jarosz]

If you're using "fine art" in a gallery or art context, there's a 99% chance you're being redundant, and unwittingly annoying me.

So how do you feel about "flammable", "non-flammable", "inflammable" & "non-inflammable" ? :D

John (wow - lotsa opinions)

[rdenney]

So how do you feel about "flammable", "non-flammable", "inflammable" & "non-inflammable" ?

Be careful--Kirk will delete your post as being inflammatory.

Rick "someone had to do it" Denney

[Ben Syverson]

So how do you feel about "flammable", "non-flammable", "inflammable" & "non-inflammable" ? :D
Ignites easily: Always, always, always use flammable.
Does not ignite easily: Always, always, always use nonflammable (no hyphen).

That's the only sane way to avoid confusion...

Hey, you asked. :D

[Brian Ellis]

. . . I have a lot of friends who are painters and sculptors, and I don't hear these kinds of discussions in that crowd very often. It seems to mainly be photographers who are concerned with the "legitimacy" of their craft, not the ceramicist who's cranking out large plates, or the glass blower and his vases. They want their work to be of high quality but they let others do the assessments of whether its artistic or not. . . .

Exactly. There sometimes seems to be an inverse ratio between the quality of the work and the number of times the words "artist" and "art" or "fine art" are used on a photographer's web site. If a photographer feels compelled to repeatedly inform me that his or her work is "art" than I figure he or she must be worried that the work alone won't do the trick.

[mandoman7]

I'm reminded of an old Jeff Bridges movie where he was an aspiring writer of westerns, and upon introducing himself to a producer he was told, "Other people can say you're a writer, but you can't. Its not for you to say."

Brian, I've borrowed your borrowed shoes quote several times in other settings. Hope you don't mind, its a good one.

[paulr]

They call the building at a college "Fine Arts" to distinguish it from, say, "Industrial Arts" (and my university had such a build and a degree program to go with it). I don't think that's the same as Paul's distinction between eating and fine dining.

I think the distinction is similar. They're both categories. The word "fine" just happens to be annoying in these contexts, because it sounds like puffery. But it doesn't actually mean that the art (or the food) is any good.

Most restaurants know better than to trumpet themselves as fine dining establishments, exactly because it sounds pretentious. But in conversations, diners, critics, and employees will use the term as a point of clarity. Like, to suggest a restaurant like Les Halles instead of Daniel, because it's a brasserie and not a fine dining restaurant, when you want something casual that won't take three hours or longer to get through.

If you ask the chef at a bistro if he's a fine dining chef, he'll say No, and say it with neither hesitation nor any sense of self-deprecation. He's just telling you the category of his
workplace.

Your point about art being folk art sounds like Louis Armstrong saying, "all music is folk music. I ain't never seen no horse sing a song."

[Paul Ewins]

For me the bigger question has been working out the difference between "art" and "Art". I started thinking more about when I discovered that most of the classical nudes I had looked at in the galleries of Paris and London weren't much more than porn for popes and kings. Nice, respectable, religious or mythological themed porn. Then I was shown the works where there was a hidden subtext, usually political (like the statue of David) and later still someone trying to express an idea through art.

So on the one hand you have (for instance) the impressionists finding new ways to represent the world, but not necessarily saying anything about it, while the Dadaists were brimming with things to say without necessarily being superb crafstmen or breaking new grounds in technique. Nowadays both groups are revered, and in their own time were often rejected. The former I regard as "art" and that latter as "Art" with "Art" being the person with something they need to communicate.

"Art" is the thing I hope to eventually be able to create, to be able to communicate more than just "this mountain is pretty" or "this city is going to the dogs". While there is a lot of modern photography that appears to be gimmicky every so often I find that I understand what they are trying to say, so now I try to look past what I think may be a gimmick to see if there is something deeper there.

Of course the problem with labels is that they are usually used divisively and I guess calling one thing "art" denigrates it compared to "Art". In my mind one has something more than the other, regardless of the aesthetics or craftsmanship involved, so I can't help but divde them up. However I am in no position to say that one is good and the other bad when my own efforts at either are strictly mediocre. It is just my own way of seeing things. And after all, opinions are like...

[ki6mf]

I am just passing this along and did not make it up: [Fine] Art is anything you can get away with. (Brackets mine!)

[Mark Sawyer]

So how do you feel about "flammable", "non-flammable", "inflammable" & "non-inflammable" ? :D

John (wow - lotsa opinions)

I think in the case of writings about "Fine Arts", and Artists' Statements especially, we should separate the categories of "flim-flamable" and "non-flim-flamable"... :rolleyes:

[Struan Gray]

I haven't really thought this through, but I wonder if the difference between "art" and "fine art" is like the difference between "physics" and "theoretical physics", and if the difference between "fine art" and "folk art" is the same as the difference between "theoretical physics" and "applied physics", or (in the old days) between "physics" and "engineering".

"All science is either physics, or stamp collecting." Lord Rutherford.

Physicists still enjoying lording it over the softer sciences, but not nearly as much as we used to. The danger of treating physics as a sub-branch of philosophy is that you end up being funded at the same sort of level, and that hurts. The move towards "data rich" research - using computers to sift or parse large quantities of raw information - has also led to us borrowing statistical techniques from the formerly despised social sciences.



http://struangray.com/miscpics/stripes.jpg

Parallel zips: nanowire capacitance, mixed media, 2009


I see 'fine art' in photography as an aspirational marketing term. The way it is used, and the attitudes of those who use it, remind me of the slightly desperate lower middle classes in nineteenth century novels insisting on their status as gentlemen.

Even in the wider arts, the artists and writers I come across reserve 'Fine Arts' as a slightly historical distinction - it crops up most often in the titles of established museums. My own aesthetic response is highly profligate, and has always been excited as much by applied arts and design as by the grand old plastic arts, so for me the categorisation is a useful one for conversation, but not for my own life as a consumer or maker of art.

[John Jarosz]

I just remembered that there is another term bandied about: "Modern Art".

Don't know what it's good for, but the "Contemporary Modern Art" that is currently being shown (photography included) in the new Modern Wing of the Art institute of Chicago is a real challenge. There are some vintage examples of modern art by big names, Magritte, Picasso, etc that have held up very well and even have some appeal. But the contemporary modern art (IMHO) is very close to useless.

So curators seem to be hung up on affixing labels that definitely separate works into real (to them) cubbyholes. I would most assuredly call contemporary modern art something else.

[Ben Syverson]

The division is typically Modern Art (~1890-1960) and Contemporary Art (~1960-present). This division roughly mirrors the transition from Modernism to Postmodernism. So it's a bit glib to write off 40+ years of recent art history as "useless."

Any art being made right now is by definition "Contemporary Art." So we are all contemporary artists, whether we like that label or not.

[aduncanson]

...Sometimes people use the outdated term "visual art" in place of "fine art," but it's less useful, as it excludes conceptual and sound art.

If you're using "fine art" in a gallery or art context, there's a 99% chance you're being redundant, and unwittingly annoying me. ;)

On the other hand, sometimes the term "visual art" is useful because it DOES exclude conceptual and sound art.

And galleries specializing in Folk Art or Decorative Arts are not that uncommon.

[Ben Syverson]

Not to mention "Visionary Art" or "Intuitive Art," or the outmoded term "Outsider Art," all of which refer to the same concept.

[paulr]

"I see 'fine art' in photography as an aspirational marketing term. The way it is used, and the attitudes of those who use it, remind me of the slightly desperate lower middle classes in nineteenth century novels insisting on their status as gentlemen.

Haven't you also seen used in the pidgeon-hole sense that I mentioned earlier? I've heard people being categorized, and maybe even gently dismissed, as "fine art photographers" when their work looks vintage and precious ... like a knockoff or descendent of American pre WW-2 photography.

[paulr]

Don't know what it's good for, but the "Contemporary Modern Art" that is currently being shown (photography included) in the new Modern Wing of the Art institute of Chicago is a real challenge...

are they actually calling it that, or is that your phrase? please tell me they aren't calling it that :eek:

[Struan Gray]

Haven't you also seen used in the pidgeon-hole sense that I mentioned earlier? I've heard people being categorized, and maybe even gently dismissed, as "fine art photographers" when their work looks vintage and precious ... like a knockoff or descendent of American pre WW-2 photography.

I have seen that, but only within the photographic community. I haven't come across so many people in the wider arts world who use the term at all - it seems to be mostly a photo-world thing.

Most of what I personally think of as 'fine art' photography would be seen as largely irrelevant by the contemporary art scene, just as woodworking or glass blowing is largely irrelevant. That's not (necessarily) a criticism, or a value judgement, at least on my part.

[Dennis]

General Schwarzkopf said during Desert Storm that the US military had raised warfare to the level of a fine art. I think he meant that their technique was very advanced, though he might have meant that the bomb blasts were cool. I think fine art merely differs from art in being with polished skill vs not necessarily skilled. Or it could be that fine art photography is done with Tmax 100 instead of Tri-X
Dennis

[paulr]

Maybe it had to do with shock and awe?

It's possible that Schwartkopf would have different ideas about art than, say, Szarkowski.

[Mark Sawyer]

Maybe it had to do with shock and awe?

It's possible that Schwartkopf would have different ideas about art than, say, Szarkowski.

And perhaps Szarkowski would have had different ideas about bombs than Shwarzkopf...

Perhaps what is telling is that so many people of other genres think of their highest levels as being "elevated to fine art". Rather in contradiction with the point raised earlier (and correctly, I think), that "Fine Art" has little to do with quality, and much with aspiration.

(Now if only I could raise my Fine Art to the level of a Fine Art... )

[Mike1234]

Is Finer Art a level above Fine Art? Or maybe Finer-er Art or even Finer-er-er Art? :)

[WalterE54]

Szarkowski vs. Shwarzkopf is very interesting to me--I remember Szarkowski's cool "snap-shot" belt buckle, but I imagine Shwarzkoph could really outdo this one with something like WW2 & the campaign in Itlay or wherever! I have always liked saying "I'm a photographer" when asked what kind of "artist" I was at galleries,etc. I think "artist" is kind of a burden in its description, geez, nothing too full of myself, just a photographer, an observer of what is around me is good for me. Oh, but I have labelled my website as Fine Art Photography---just for sales though. LOL

[Mark Sawyer]

I have always liked saying "I'm a photographer" when asked what kind of "artist" I was at galleries,etc. I think "artist" is kind of a burden in its description, geez, nothing too full of myself, just a photographer, an observer of what is around me is good for me. Oh, but I have labelled my website as Fine Art Photography---just for sales though. LOL

The term "Artist" does seem a bit pretentiously loaded, especially when self-assigned. Having gone through a Fine Arts program for a BFA, I'd offer my opinion that very few of the undergraduate or graduate students, or the professors, were really and truly "artists" in the best sense of the word. On my best days, I can maybe hope to dance around the edges, but even that seems a pretentious claim...

[paulr]

I think "artist" is kind of a burden in its description...

It can be a burden, but I think this is a shame, and it's one of the reasons I fight against any definition of "artist" that implies you're good at anything. I just think of it as a description of an avocation--like "plumber," or "proctologist."

What I like about "artist" is that it doesn't pigeon hole you. If my identity gets too wrapped up in being a photographer, I might be less open projects that involve music, or writing, or whatever. I think it should all be fair game. Photography just happens to be the medium I've had the most luck with so far.


Oh, but I have labelled my website as Fine Art Photography---just for sales though. LOL

And I've avoided the term Fine Art Photography--also for reasons of sales and marketing! I sometimes fight getting lumped together with very conservative traditionalist photographers, and i've found that avoiding that phrase can help.