What is fine art photography?

[Leonard Metcalf]

A fellow photographer asked me this a few weeks ago - would like to know what this group thinks / believes / wants it to be.

It probably sparks up the question what is art? What is fine art?

What is an artist?

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

If the naked lady is in focus it is porn and if she is out of focus it is fine art. Just kidding. I think fine art photography was made up by photographers who got tired of being thought of as not as good as painters. Art photography is anything that you would frame and put on a wall. Whether it is fine or not is up to the viewer.

[John Cook]

The late Todd Walker, one of the finest photographers (and gentlemen) I have ever had the honor to know, used to define "sensitive and poetic" as photography which is "out of focus with funny color".

He further defined "calendar photography" as "having everything in focus with lots of red in the picture".

I recommend his website to you: http://personal.riverusers.com/~jdf/todd_walker/

[Geoffrey Swenson]

Edward (Halifax, NS) made a quite succinct point. To add mine; There is no art in photography. Some try very hard to sell their ware as art, but art it is ain’t.

Browsing through the photographs of many famous practitioners one has to realize that most only managed to produce up to a dozen noteworthy photographs in their lifetime – Angel Adams included. The rest of the pile is mostly just that…a pile of negatives/transparencies.

Now, some of the efforts might skirt the realms of Art, although it is extremely rare.

[Mike Troxell]

"It probably sparks up the question what is art? What is fine art?

What is an artist?"

With the same question in mind, what makes a painting art? It certainly isn't the fact that paint and a brush were used. There are much more paint and brushes sold each year to paint the side of houses than to paint a painting. It isn't the fact alone that the paint is applied with skill and technique. A house painter must be skilled and use a certain technique or the house will not look good after they finish painting it. And it isn't that one takes pride in their work and the other doesn't. Many house painters are very proud of their work. So what seperates a artist/painter and someone who paints the sides of houses for a living? After thinking about it, all I came come up with are:

(1) The painters perception of what they do, including why they paint (2) The intended end result of the painting process (3) The publics perception of what they do (4) The subject matter (to a small extent)

Apply that to photography and ask what is the difference between the person who takes vacation snapshots at DisneyWorld and someone like Edward Weston, Paul Strand, John Sexton or any number of photographers, both in the past and the present.

[Ralph Barker]

Fine art is the result of successful marketing, as it exists only in the mind of the buyer of the work. ;-)

An alternative definition is that art is what hangs on the walls of common people, fine art on the walls of the rich. ;-)

While a gross over-simplification, I think there is an element of truth to the idea that those who can, do; those who can't, teach. Those who can neither do nor teach, become critics.

[kallitype]

CS's reply is one extreme, with no justification for his 'arguments', unless you grant that "art is in the eye of the beholder', and CS's eye is super-exclusive. I agree with the poster who holds that "fine art" is an attempt by some photographers to add cache to their work, that somehow calling it fine art elevates it. It helps if the photo is of an abandoned building, peeling wall, and devoid of people (unless they're naked ---excuse me, nude---women.) Maybe you can charge more for your pix if somehwere it is described as 'fine art'??? I like Weston's reply to someone who was trying to get him to accept "fine art photographer" as a label, that "Edward Weston, Photographer" was good enough for him. His work spoke for itself, and he belittled artist's statements as a lot of mumbo-jumbo. But I think there is agreement that what he produced was art, and that calling one's own work "fine art" is presumptious, whether a photo is "art" is a determination made by others, perhaps after some passage of time. One dictionary says

Fine art is a term used to refer to fields traditionally considered to be artistic. It is also used to describe "high-quality" works from these fields.

"Fine art" differs from "useful art" (craft) in that it is purely aesthetic, whereas crafts are made to serve a practical purpose. Example: a sculpture of a teapot that does not actually work is fine art, whereas one that does work is craft.

The Fine Arts: Music Theater and Opera Drawing and Painting Sculpture Textiles Printmaking and Photography Motion pictures and Film

Here's a URL for a photographer who labels his work "fine art" and describes just what he means by that apellation: http://www.danmassey.co.uk/

The question of whether photography is art has been argued for decades. In my opinion, photos made by artists in other media, esp painters and sculptors, are different than photos made by strictly photographers, and more "artistic", more likely to be manipulated, rather than 'straight' (E. Weston's term). I refer especially to photos in the book on alternative methods by Christopher James, photos by students in art classes tend to be much more creative than the "rocks and rivers" straight photos of the Ansel devotees.

In my opinion, "Fine Art Photography" is a marketing ploy, hurts no one, and may get you more $$ for your pictures, if you can convince the gallery-goers that your snap of the Mesa Arch is really fine art, better than the snaps of the other 15 photographers who stood there with you in the chilly dawn, jostling for position. If Fine Art Photographer is pejorative in the positive, labelling someone a "hobby photgrapher" is pejorative in the negative. Not to mention calling someone's life work "just a pile of negatives"....

[adrian tyler]

i think that the bottom line is "you decide".

[Jim Galli]

Fine art is defined by the people with the $. There's no other definition. Any other guideline can be immediately challenged. Pictures made in the '50s for the most generic of news stories can be fine art now if the $ people decide "that" photographers things are valuable. And the guy down the street who is worlds more interesting and technically superb, he'll die and his stuff will wind up in a land fill. Even the movers and shakers in the world of people who would pay $ for this stuff would tell you that collectable pictures have a life of their own. It's like a higher someone makes a decree that so and so's pictures are now art, and people climb on board. In the meantime and probably for all time I'll continue to give my pics away to folks who will enjoy them and support my un-ending bad habit with Ebay.

[Witold Grabiec]

No question that it's entirely up to the individual to decide. But statements of Mr. GS' sort (an obvious master of BS that so often hit the streets of on-line forums) really piss me off. Strong convictions have no weight to them if one can't even sign his name under it. His comments are pure insult to many great photographers (past and present, famous and completely unknown). I'm not sure when this arguing over "art it ain't" will stop, but to demean every single achievement in this great (and equal) form of art in one ignorant statement?

What's art to one it may not be to another. One time I saw "art" in a well known gallery. It was a sculpture, it was also a crankshaft from a larger engine displayed vertically, there was also nothing done to it but some cleaning. Be my guest an enjoy "art" as some perceive it. There is NO medium that could not reach the status of art.

Here is a definition of art as I see it:

"high quality of conception or execution, aesthetic value"

You be the judge whether a photograph is capable of that.

[Bob Fowler]

"If the naked lady is in focus it is porn and if she is out of focus it is fine art."

THAT is the best definition I've ever seen!

[Graeme Hird]

Good troll GS - some might even say it was artful.

[Richard Rau]

There are a lot of museums that put art on display and that art is recoginized as fine art. There are great museums that house great art, The National Gallery, MOMA, to name a few. There are people who call themselves curators who have the job of determining what is fine art and what is not, what to display and what not to display. Are their decisions any more educated as to what makes fine art any better than anyone elses? Probably. Then again, probably not. I have seen a lot of bad art, in my opinion, in some very well respected museums. That is not to say that the old saying holds true, art is in the eye of the beholder. A fine example is MOBA, The Museum of Bad Art. They also have a curator and a board of directors whose sole purpose is to seek out and display bad art. Check their web site, it is quite humorous. Just because you slap a frame around a painting or a photograph and hang it on a wall does not necessarily make it fine art or even just art. What it does do is that it calls attention to the work and makes us take a harder look at someone's conception or vision and presents a window into another person's world. Ansel's proclamation that art gives life affirmation may be profound, perhaps even poetic, and wouldn't our lives be awfully boring with out it. Bottom line is, if it looks like art to you, it must be art. If it doesn't, it may get thrown away in a dumpster and eventually it could wind up in a frame, on a wall, in the Museum of Bad Art or in somebody's home. And it could become art anyway to someone else, good or bad!

[william_3670]

"To have dared...and to have been right."

[mark lindsey]

I think it's one of the forums over at photo.net......

[Leonard Metcalf]

To add to the pot...

To the valuer at 'Christies' or a collector fine art photography would imply that it is collectable and would increase in value over time. An investment.

To an artist art is about communication of an idea / emotion / concept etc. (well that is what art school told me art was).

To an other artist it is about creating for pleasure of viewing (to be hung on someones wall).

For a photographer it is... (which is why I am asking photographers)

I ask as I was firstly trained as an artist not as a photographer, all of my photography training was to produce art. Which is probably why I don't run a business as a comercial photographer. And try to sell my works as art (framed to go on walls for the pleasure of others).

Sorry I don't get much joy out of photo.net and prefer to discuss with people who have something in common with me. A love for large format photography.

Thanks for the replies... and hope there are some more opinions out there... Len

[Graeme Hird]

Leonard,



In your last post you mention that you were trained as an artist - not a photographer, and to an artist, art is about communicating ideas or creating pleasure for other viewers.



Can you tell me why you think photographers are not artists? Do you think that photographers are not trying to communicate ideas/emotions/concepts? Do you think that photographers do not create prints for the pleasure of viewing?



If you can remove your own predisposition against photographers as artists, you can answer your own question. You know what "Fine Art" is from an "Artist's" point of view - photographers have the same point of view, because they are artists who choose to work in the medium of photography (well some of them are - the ones who call their work Fine Art Photography).

Graeme

[Leonard Metcalf]

Dear Graeme,

It is not that I don't know what I think art is, it is asking to find out what others think fine art photography is, so that I can better understand peoples comments etc. I definately think that photographers are artists - though I am not sure how many photographers think they are (often prefering to descibe themselves as photographers).

I didn't say that I, as an artist, believe that art is about communicating ideas, I said that we were taught that this is what art is. (it seemed to be quite different from what others were being taught at various times in the history of art training). The reality is that each has a personal vision of what there art is about. Hence the artists statement.

I have found myself using the term to descibe my own work, and having an understanding of what practioners (the members of this forum) mean / understand / imply is important.

I also think that photographers convey thoughts, feelings, concepts generally better than many other mediums. Asthetics is definately important (fortunately a matter for the personal).

Perhaps to the lay person a fine art photographer is one who has been elivated by critics and curators to the position of collectability.

So Graeme, what does the term fine art photography mean to you? or perhaps there is another troll in the garden!

Len

[Bob._3483]

" or perhaps there is another troll in the garden! "

That was unneccesary.

This is the way all these kinds of discussions end up - in a holy war where someone decides to stop arguing their case and make personal attacks. This is *not* photo.net....

Play nicely.

Cheers,

[Leonard Metcalf]

Sorry... thought it was funny rather than offensive when I wrote it (referencing an earlier coment).

Graeme, please don't take it personaly... I am looking to engage in stimulating converstation...

Len

[Bob._3483]

I see your point. Subtlety is not easy without the tone of voice to show one is tongue-in-cheek - easy to take things the wrong way. A :-) or ;-) goes a long way (but of course, some people hate them. Ho hum...).

Cheers,

[Geoffrey Swenson]

Now, here is the Troll :-))

Photography is a beautiful hobby or a craft (you decide) and one should not be ashamed to admit that through its many mechanical components it still can produce gorgeous, thought-evoking images, but Art not too often.

I cannot understand why it is so important to elevate photography to a higher status than it warrants and incessantly castigate others who don’t think your way. There have been previous discussions on this subject and in my estimation the opinions are more or less evenly divided between the two extremes.

Among the thoughtful responses I really liked Jim Galli’s healthy attitude towards his love of photography.

[Mike Troxell]

Or you could say:

"Painting is a beautiful hobby or a craft (you decide) and one should not be ashamed to admit that through its many mechanical components (the number of brush sizes, styles and types must number in the hundreds, not to mention all the different types, surfaces and finishes of painting canvas) it still can produce gorgeous, thought-evoking images, but Art not too often."

Actually, there is alot of truth to this statement also. Painting is not art because it is Painting. Just as Photography is not art because it is Photography. Any medium can product either art or trash. I've been a photographer for over 20 years but I've just begun to show my photographs to others (besides my family and a small circle of friends) this past year. So far I've had several gallery exhibits and just won an Emerging Artist scholorship to a major art show. Am I an artist then? Personally, I don't care. They can call me an Artist, a Photographer or even a Craftsperson as long as I'm allowed to create photographs. If others enjoy them and buy my photographs then that is an extra bonus. If I'm called an artist then that is an extra bonus (I guess). If I were ever able to make a living 100% from selling my photographs that would definitely be an extra bonus. Take away all the bonuses and leave me with photography and I'll still get by. The title doesn't really matter, although I will be the first to admit that like most photographers/painters/artist/craftspersons/etc., I have an ego and enjoy sharing my work with others.

[Geoffrey Swenson]

Mike, I guess your heart/mind is in the right place. I do think along similar lines you do…. at least I hope. Cheers!

[Graeme Hird]

Len,



Absolutely no offence taken and I actually smiled at the thought of another troll in the garden! There is indeed a fine line between a troll's needling words and an informed response designed to provoke thoughtful dialogue.



It's no good asking me what fine art is though. I find the term pretentious and a somewhat egocentric. If someone has to label their work "Fine Art" to get it noticed by the critics, I wonder if their work is really good enough to be called "art" in any sense. Are they calling it Fine Art so that people think all those technical errors in the print were done on purpose?



I let the people who see my work decide what to call it, though nobody has ever called it "Fine Art". I think a print can be called art if people appreciate it for what it is - not for a presumptuous label. How do they show appreciation for my prints? They buy them! Surely that's the ultimate determining factor as to whether a print is art or not - someone places value on it. Occasionally enough value to use their own money to buy it.



So, back to your original questions and my own answers to them:



What is art? Art is something created by a person which has value to that person or to others. That value might be purely intellectual or purely commercial, but it is of value.



What is Fine Art? An manifestation of a pompous nature and an over-sized ego.



What is an artist? A creative person.



And the one you left out: Who produces Fine Art? We have a term for them here in Australia which rhymes with Banker, but Jeff Dykehouse's daughter might be reading .... :)



Of course, you could be reading the words of another type of artist here: The BS Artist! I'll leave that opinion for you to decide on.



Cheers,
Graeme

[neil poulsen]

"If it works, it's art."

I like this phrase as a sort of definition of art.

In terms of "fine" art, perhaps "refined" art provides an insight. I've always thought of "fine" art as that to which added care has been taken, either in construction, composition, presentation, marketing, all of the above, etc.

For example, I infer from Ansel Adam's books that the "fine print" is a photographic image that has been brought to it's fullest potential through careful framing (on easel), exposure, dodging, burning, spotting, matting, and the like.

The week of Sept. 11th, this sub five-foot lady used a ladder to paint this HUGE American Flag on the side of a rather large metal building on her property. It covers the entire side, and it has a rural setting. It stands proud and makes a loud and clear statement. This is definately art, folk art. But, I'm not sure that I would call it "fine" art. It was a spontaneous expression of her feelings. It was not created for the purpose of being, "art".

Perhaps "art", "fine art", etc., are others that fall into the category, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

[Leonard Metcalf]

Fine art:

"Essentially the distinction between 'art', 'craft' and 'APPLIED ART'. The modern notion of 'fine art' can be traced back to the Renaissance when ther was a strong movement, led by Leonardo da Vinci, to demonstrate that the painter in particular was practicing an intellectual and not a manual skill. Included under this heading are drawing; music; painting; poetry; printmaking; sculpture; (photography ed) and other forms of art which do not fulfil a practical function."

Reynolds, K & Seddon, R 1981 'Illustrated dictionary of art terms; a handbook for the art lover'; Edbury Press, London

[David A. Goldfarb]

Leonard's last answer is the answer.

What is art?--This is a difficult question that involves much philosophical speculation.

What is fine art?--This is a simple question that is merely a matter of definition. Fine art is art that exists only for itself. Fine art is work for display only, as opposed to applied art, commercial art, illustration, where the art is a means to another end, such as functionality, advertising or profit, or to demonstrate some aspect of a written text.

[Leonard Metcalf]

Fine art photography

"...the term is taken to be a picture that is produced for sale or display rather than one that is produced in response to a commercial commission. It is assumed that most of the pictures that are covered by the fine art banner are personal images that meet self-imposed criteria, and that they are, as a result, very close to the heart of the photographer and are representative of his or her interpretation of the world."

Hope, T. 2003 Fine Art Photography, creating beautiful images for sale and display; RotoVision SA, Switzerland

[Graeme Hird]

Hey, waddya know? We are all fine art photographers!

[RichSBV]

For some odd reason, I just had to throw my 2 cents in here.

Either my memory has gotten really bad, or you're just a bunch of young folks. And I don't think it's my memory because I confirmed it with my wife.

30+ odd years ago "Fine Art Photography" meant only one thing. They were taking nude photos that weren't supposed to offend anyone because it was "art" and not porn. To this day when I hear the term "Fine art photo..." it's the first and only thing I think of.

Maybe 'they' are trying to redefine the term to boost prices? Maybe to legitimize those big digital prints? I don't really care. For anyone who was around back then, it still means only one thing...

[Clay Turtle]

"It probably sparks up the question what is art? What is fine art?

What is an artist?"

With the same question in mind, what makes a painting art? It certainly isn't the fact that paint and a brush were used. There are much more paint and brushes sold each year to paint the side of houses than to paint a painting. It isn't the fact alone that the paint is applied with skill and technique. A house painter must be skilled and use a certain technique or the house will not look good after they finish painting it. And it isn't that one takes pride in their work and the other doesn't. Many house painters are very proud of their work. So what seperates a artist/painter and someone who paints the sides of houses for a living? After thinking about it, all I came come up with are:

(1) The painters perception of what they do, including why they paint (2) The intended end result of the painting process (3) The publics perception of what they do (4) The subject matter (to a small extent)

Apply that to photography and ask what is the difference between the person who takes vacation snapshots at DisneyWorld and someone like Edward Weston, Paul Strand, John Sexton or any number of photographers, both in the past and the present.

A funny thing to see this statement being made here? I had a similar thought in the business section. Working in photo processing, I knew a guy, who would come in & at the drop of a hat & without batting an eye order 3 or 4 hundred's 8x10 of maybe 5 or 6 35mm negatives. He ran high volumes of sports prints but would one classify them as art?

[Michael Graves]

A fine art photo is any one I didn't make?

[David_Senesac]

I think to address that question, it might be easier to first list what most of us would not consider fine art photography. I for one could easily make a list in short order that would include a number of processing and media types that would come under the category of cheap and lacking in skill to produce. For instance a handheld snapshot with a cheap compact digital camera, processed with a $29 photo application, and printed on a $99 consumer inkjet printer, using ordinary short life inks, atop cheap photo paper, is not fine art on several counts regardless of whether your Aunt Martha or some famous photographer captured the original. ...David

[cyrus]

I think there's a much more prosaic answer to all this.

Fine art photography is usually contrasted with "commercial" photography (photography used in arenas such as advertising, used to sell stuff.)

In commercial photography, the photo is incidental to the thing which is being sold, and the person who "calls the shots" is the art director/client -- not the photographer herself. In fine art photography, the photo itself is the "thing" of interest, and it is meant to convey the photographer's own sense of creativity.

Naturally, both fine art and commercial photography can involve money, and it doesn't mean that commercial photography is necessarily any less "artistic" than fine art photography -- but the art is a secondary concern.

As for what is art? My personal view: take everything that has any utilitarian value of any sort and put it all aside. What's left, is art.

[domenico Foschi]

"WHat is Fine Art Photography?"
Images printed on single weight paper?

[Greg Lockrey]

Fine art photography and fine art for that matter are examples of the fourth stage hat a person needs to achieve in his quest to be called an artist. The first stage is called doodler in that he is making his art to satisfy only himself and it is not important that others take notice. The second stage he is called a student which others now notice his work and he strives to satisfy someone else usually an instructor. The third stage is called craftsman, this is where someone is willing to pay for his efforts. He can be doing his art or to a direction of a client. The fourth stage is when someone wants his work to such an extent and is willing to go to jail for it. Once the piece is stolen the craftsman is now achieved the status as anartist and the piece can now be called fine art since now someone was willing to lose his freedom over it.
:rolleyes:

[Michael Wynd]

Len,
if you take the "f" from fine and add it to art, then that's what you get.
I take photographs. If other people like them and buy them, they're still photographs
Mike

[jb7]

There have been some really good responses here, and some really prejudiced ones-
as is to be expected-

Fine Art Photography is now a term used on thousands of websites where you can add an image to a cart-
and if the market accepts it, then that is fine art photography,
whether the image is printed by unattanium toned giant squid ink on woven millipede legs,
or outputted from the latest inkjet printer-

At one end of the market, perhaps the process is unimportant,
what matters is the picture on the wall- and who is to know or care how it was captured-
it performs a useful decorative function.

At another end, the process is everything-
and an informed collector might take delight in knowing what separates his piece from countless others out there-
and he wont be calling it a 'Fine Art Photograph',
he might be more specific in referring to it as an Ambrotype,
or a Platinum Toned 8x10 Contact Print, or whatever it is-

There's no denying that the term has been appropriated-
perhaps it always has been-
but I do think it is an obfuscation in many cases these days-
any inkjet print is a Gicleé, and digital capture becomes Fine Art Photography.

Its marketing, and Art needs a market-

j

[Greg Lockrey]

How do you get an artist off the porch?

Pay him for the Pizza.


----------------

What is the technical term artists use to describe fine art collectors with finely honed taste and the largest private collections?

Mom.

:D :D :D

[Clay Turtle]

To add mine;
There is no art in photography. Some try very hard to sell their ware as art, but art it is ain’t.
Now, some of the efforts might skirt the realms of Art, although it is extremely rare.No art in photography? Hmm . . . that is certainly expressive of perhaps a rather cynical outlook? On one hand you could say their is an art to any craft or trade. The house painter becomes an artist & a slab of concrete becomes the canvas . . . some refer to it as graffiti? Well oone might as well ask what art is there in photography? To convey meaning or feelings . . . to comunicate with others. perceptions which transcend the medium?

[John Kasaian]

No art in photography? Hmm . . . that is certainly expressive of perhaps a rather cynical outlook? On one hand you could say their is an art to any craft or trade. The house painter becomes an artist & a slab of concrete becomes the canvas . . . some refer to it as graffiti? Well oone might as well ask what art is there in photography? To convey meaning or feelings . . . to comunicate with others. perceptions which transcend the medium?

Art isn't in photography. He's in plumbing. I know because Art is married to my bride's cousin:D

[jenn wilson]

this may as well be a discussion on "what is art?". in my experience, these exchanges are virtually pointless, as art is entirely subjective. no point is ever made that changes another's mind. as a result, most participants either become at least slightly enraged or sit nodding their heads vigorously.

there is art in everything. painting, film, music, writing, cooking, woodworking (to name only a few media) all involve art in one way or another. concept, craft and creative process all contribute to a successful finished product, whether functional commercially or not.

the important bit is to respect all photography (and art) in all its forms. you don't have to like it, but a certain amount of appreciation is necessary. it all has its place.

just enjoy whatever it is you do and keep doing it.

[Dirk Rösler]

People like categorisation and this is just another label. In the market place there are of course conventions and rules of what and who is part of it, good at it, valuable etc. Think "limited editions", "traditional techniques", "maximum tonality", "100% no digital", "printed on paper made by the forest elves" to name a few. The label is also useful to be appropriated to add value by the clueless to sell their products to even more clueless players. It is a game society likes to play, ultimately a variation of "mine is bigger than yours" which is also a popular game.

[Gerry]

fine art photography is simply a term some photographers use try to seperate their work from the mass of OTHER photographs out there. Giving a a grandiose name to something makes it seem more important but art that moves people does so without any of the pretentions the artist/curator/public put on it.

www.gerryyaum.com

[Christopher Breitenstein]

Another issue this post brings up is what is a photographer? A friend of mine once told me that a photographer is anyone who considers making pictures (with a camera) their work. Depending on how you take that it could mean any number of things. Is it strictly the process of making pictures? or making pictures along with other tasks you have to do? Given his conviction, or perhaps my projection, on how the title "Photographer" held with very little respect. it seems to be handed out to any one with a camera (and readily embraced by that person holding the camera).

Does owning a piano make you a pianist? paint brush, a painter? Pen and paper, a writer? Hemmingway had several books published before he took on the title! The list goes on and on. it seems as though all it takes to be a photographer is owning a camera!

To define Art: Art is made by Artists.

Are you an Artist?

Yours:

[keith english]

One definition that helped me in school, was to seperate fine art from commercial, fine art is made to satisfy the photographer (and hopefully eventually a buyer), commercial is made to satisfy the client.

[Leonard Metcalf]

I really like the analogy about it not being commercial... and perhaps we should add not being snapshots... (or something around that)

This comes back to the intention for me. Maybe it is there when you take it...maybe it comes latter, but the photographic art community defiantly can define it. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to choose what to hang in their next exhibition.

Mind you that decision is made based on what others write about you, and in who's collections your work resides, and where you studied, where you exhibited.

I had forgotten about this post... thanks for adding some more recent thoughts...

I'll dig up my essay on this and post it here too...

Regards,

Len

[Leonard Metcalf]

What is Fine Art Photography?

This question was posed by Paul Cosgrove to me while we were hanging images in the local photography exhibition earlier in the year. It sparked a whole train of thought, wondering indeed what it was. I subsequently posted the same question at the large format photography forum (for the link click here). I do consider my work as fine art photography and discuss my thoughts behind this ubiquitous label.

To hang on walls – My first response to questions about why I take photographs is often to say “I love people enjoying my work so much that they wish to hang it permanently on their wall.” I at first thought that this was a result of my art school training where this was one of my goals. If it is hung publicly (and not for advertising purposes) then to me it is fine art.

Collect ability – Fine art photography has been defined by how collectable the photographs are or become. Are the images enduring enough to stand the test of time. For some the ultimate goal is to have their images preserved in museums and art collections, or in the possession of collectors. What makes an image collectable varies widely from the image or content, process, photographer and historical significance. Many collectable photographs are indeed not fine art. In discussions with a gallery owner, one of the key ingredients of a collectable photograph was its rarity (ie limited print run, by edition or death).

Archive ability – Tightly aligned with collecting is the expectation that fine art photography can survive time, long term storage and display. Though this alone does not guarantee that the image is indeed fine art. Many photographs that have been actively collected (bought and sold for high prices) may not indeed be archival, but it does seem to be of primary importance to modern photographic collectors.

Art for arts sake – Because I enjoy taking photographs against my own criteria for what a great photograph is. It is the reason I study other photographers’ (and artists’) work with such passion. To observe, to copy (for the purpose of learning) and then to produce something that is indeed different. Finding ones own personal vision in a world of appropriation has become a life long passion.

Communicate – My passions for the Gaia (mother earth) and deep felt desire to stop humanities abuse of her lie beneath my wilderness (landscape) photographs. If Dombroskis’s photograph of Island Bend can educate and influence a voting public into saving the Franklin River (Tasmania), then there is hope in nature photography to be able to influence the world to move towards an environmentally sustainable future. Art by its very nature is about the communication of ideas, principles, thoughts, feelings and passions. When you look at one of my photographs you are indeed looking through Len’s lens, my interpretation of the world and what I see.

Aesthetics – My goal is to produce an aesthetically pleasing photograph without copying those who have gone before. When you look at a photograph and you get that wonderful feeling inside, because of its inherent beauty, then it must be fine art. Not to say that all fine art makes you feel good.

Made by an artist – What makes an artist? Creativity as expressed in an artwork… is perhaps one of the only clearly defining links between artists.

Sold as art - Recently I have started to wonder if the ongoing sales and popularity of particular images, some just seem to keep on selling, are really fine art images. Some of my most outstanding fine art photographs (measured against my own criteria) have never sold. Sales is a worthless criteria if you are to judge fine art by what history has demonstrated with very few artists gaining success in their own lifetimes, though since modernism this no longer appears to be the case.

These are my thoughts from a couple of years ago. Many thanks for some of the ideas that came from this post, so thanks to the contributors.

Regards,

Len

[Amund BLix Aaeng]

Whatever art is, it needs to be framed, so you know where art ends and wall begins. :D

Loosely quoted from Frank Zappa

[Nick K]

Fine art is just marketing mumbo jumbo. It is a term used by people trying to sell prints of photographs and denote them from any other kind of photographs. The whole process of photography is so broad and deep and there is such a gradient of people who engage in all these different processes with myriad styles that you cannot pigeon hole one as being better than the other. So defining "fine art" is going to be a fruitless effort, a completely subjective term which exists only to help people who are trying to make money in the art world.

The only thing that can really determine whether or not, in the long run, what is sold as "fine art" has true artistic merit in the long run, be it fine or not, is the test of time.

I think a lot of people may be trying to define the term "art", which is one of those things people will always hem and haw about. There are a lot of ways to look at that question, I guess. I always thought of art loosely as anything which makes me think based on some kind of aesthetic impression. Yeah its a terrible, loose definition but then the art world itself is pretty loosely defined.



Whatever art is, it needs to be framed, so you know where art ends and wall begins. :D

Loosely quoted from Frank Zappa

If I spray a stencil on a wall with spray paint, it can be (though is not by necessity) urban art. If that wall happens to be in my home, on someone elses house, or a government building that meaning can change significantly in each case. Sorry...just being a pissant.

[Kirk Gittings]

J,

Having juried hundreds of photo exhibits over the last 38 years, I have to say that (just as now) prior to digital there was plenty of crap in all photo media pretending to be art. Little has changed in that regard with the advent of digital.

[Nick K]

J,

Having juried hundreds of photo exhibits over the last 38 years, I have to say that (just as now) prior to digital there was plenty of crap in all photo media pretending to be art. Little has changed in that regard with the advent of digital.

But really it is my general observation that this is true of almost any "art" area that I see for sale. I don't really think I am that harsh of a critic, either.

[Leonard Metcalf]

A couple more definitions I found:

“Fine art photography, sometimes simply called art photography, refers to high-quality archival photographic prints of pictures that are created to fulfill the creative vision of an individual professional. Such prints are reproduced, usually in limited editions, in order to be sold to dealers, collectors or curators, rather than mass reproduced in advertising or magazines. Prints will sometimes, but not always, be exhibited in an art gallery.”

en.wikipedia.org 2007

"Fine Art Prints are prints of photographs that were created solely to fulfill the creative vision of an individual artist and where the print itself is the final physical expression of the creative process. “

Nick Rains 2007

Regards, Len

[Gary L. Quay]

I was having a version of this descussion on the Ilford Forum site. I come down on the art side of the coin. I believe that photography can be art. I mentioned the exchange on Ilford to my wife, and she agreed. A few days later, we went a favorite spot of mine: the Hawthorne Bridge here in Portland. After a few shots at an angle that I've been working on for years, I decided to move my camera to a spot that I haven't shot from often. She said, "It's never good to always shoot from the same spot too much." To which I replied, "But I haven't gotten that one right yet." She said, "Yep, you're an artist."

Art is a pact between the atrist and the viewer. If they both agree, it's art.

--Gary