Difference between Art and Fine Art = $$$$$$$
Difference between Art and Fine Art = $$$$$$$
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
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.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
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.
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.
Bruce Watson
,fine art: an activity requiring a fine skill...
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'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 ?
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...
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
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
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
Bookmarks