Difference between Art and Fine Art

[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!

[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".

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 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.



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?