Fine Art Photography

[Andy Eads]

Steven,
Please continue writing in this forum. We need you; we need each other. I think some of the sharp responses are from those of us who pour our souls into a photograph only to have someone demean it. The comment would go something like, "Your photograph can't be fine art because it is not fine art made in the same way (or of the same subject, etc.) as Mr. F. Art's work was made."
It takes guts to stick to doing what moves you. Best to you and your girlfriend as you pursue your "art."
Andy

[Lazybones]

shouldn't that be "I haven't"?

No, it sounds stupider the way I wrote it.

[tim atherton]

frack - let's try that again...

there was supposed to be a ...

[Chris Strobel]

Fine Art has 150-180 grains per square inch of print. Medium has 80-120 grains, and Coarse Art has 40-60 grains. Anything below that is condered too rough to be art. Above Fine Art there is Very Fine, which is 220-240 grains per inch, then Extra Fine which is 280-320 grains, and finally Super Fine, which is 360-600 grains. Above that it is so smooth that it cannot be considered art.

LOL!

[tim atherton]

I've just been reading something on looking at contemporary art and a couple of folk suggested I link to a blogpost on it

http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/...-pictures.html

(I'm still reading the book - if I find any more interesting passages, I'll pass them along)

[scrichton]

I believe from personal experience if you rub superfine art all over glass it makes a nice focussing screen. Only in small rotational movements though :-D

Should have said earlier Chris that is a cracker.

[Brian K]

The term Fine Art is widely used and not fully defined. It is one way to differentiate photography that exists for personal expression on the part of the artist and has no real application for it's existence (except possibly display or decoration) and beween commercial photography, photo journalism, and snap shots.

One would think that asking what someone does for a living is a simple question and requires little thought or explanation on the part of the person being asked. However if you make your living selling prints through galleries it's not that easy to answer. If I tell the person that I'm a photographer they usually assume that I photograph weddings or kids. They then go on to tell me about the horrible wedding photos they got or some other story that i really don't want to hear about because it doesn't relate in any way to what I do. I also get a sense that when they assume that you're a wedding or baby photographer, that their respect level or interest in you just dropped. I think that is partly because nowadays anyone with a camera is a "photographer" and it's no longer considered by the masses to be a skilled or professional occupation.

I then try to explain that I'm a landscape photographer, only to have them counter with a question about the market for photographing people's landscaping. This simple question of what I do for a living becomes a game of 20 questions.

I feel weird telling them I'm an "art photographer" or an "artist" because that sounds really pretentious or delusional. I end up having to explain to people that I take landscape photographs and make prints which galleries sell. That sounds only slightly pretentious and is a lot longer than a one or two word job title but is accurate. I guess the term "fine art photographer" might be a simpler term to use, and is probably an easy way to communicate what I do, but it's also extremely pretentious sounding.

Those of you who make their profession selling art, how do you answer the question about what it is you do for a living? I'm really looking for a better answer.

[John Voss]

What I was trying to get at is where does the line between something being considered in a commercial and professioanl form, art or otherwise. Fine art being a term that is linked very closely to photography and the sale of photography not commissioned by specific areas. Normally expressive "art" as a whole.

Take a look at the websites of Rolfe Horn, or Chip Forelli, for instance, and look at the photographs they post there alongside their 'fine art' images. To me, their commercial, and fine art images are indistinguishable from each other (especially Horn). I guess the 'commercial' aspect to it is that they convinced an art director that what they had to offer worked well with the marketing plan the ad agency was looking at images for. I'm sure there are others on this site whose work is similarly flexible in its ultimate utility.

And, BTW, Chris, your satire is terrific! I smiled until it hurt!

[artedetimo]

. This simple question of what I do for a living becomes a game of 20 questions.

I feel weird telling them I'm an "art photographer" or an "artist" because that sounds really pretentious or delusional....

Those of you who make their profession selling art, how do you answer the question about what it is you do for a living? I'm really looking for a better answer.

Why do you worry about it so much. Someone who asks you what you do for a living is trying to define you by how their world works. Clearly the way you live doesn't fit into their world view. Their limits shouldn't interest you. It is similar to the ways minorities and women are oppressed. Black people aren't JUST black. Women aren't JUST Women etc. The asker's ignorance shouldn't make you feel like you are being pretentious or lesser, or anything other than who you are. Define yourself by who you know you are and if they don't understand it then what's it to you.

I have been facing this "what do you do?" thing for years. For a while I just started saying I was unemployed, since no one job was employing me (Don't make a living selling art, but have a whole host of things that I do, many related to the arts). Gradually the people who cared enough to know who I was realized that I was far from unemployed. Everyone one else pitied my then girlfriend now wife for being with a dead beat (Quite funny to me, though not so fun for my now wife). My wife having to deal with the behind the back comments was the only thing that started making me say something else. Now I just say artist or entrepreneur, depending on what I think would get the least response. Now I take the very question as a sign that the person doesn't care who I am, and only need some category to file me away in, and in business the higher the category the better.

Honestly I don't get why so many people think "artist" is pretentious. Maybe the hollywood stereotypes of how snobby gallery artists are supposed to be has sunken in way too deep, but every artist (at all levels) I have ever met has had a lot to offer in a warm and open way. Some artist offer, in their work and otherwise, good questions; some, good answers. Combine that with the reality that most artist's earn very little from their pursuits and do their art only for the sake of sharing it, and I say being an artist should be a title of honor, like being a teacher or a doctor. Artists are generous and insightful people by the very nature of what they do, and those are things I value. Where and when in our culture did creating honest and thoughtful work become so looked down upon? Be proud of who you are man!

[Brian K]

Artedetimo, I don't worry about what other's may think of me, but I am considerate of the feelings of others and coming across pretentious or snooty does not make the people that you are talking to comfortable. It can come across like you're trying to make yourself better than them and for some people, granted they have to have a pretty soft ego, they can feel demeaned.

There is status in our society to be considered an artist. The works of great artists are revered, viewed in our most honored places, when you call yourself an artist you make claim to being a member of the same club as Rembrandt, Picasso, Michelangelo, etc. You may not claim the same ability as them, but nevertheless by calling yourself an artist still claim them as a kind of peer.