Is there such a thing as fine art photography anymore?

[David_Senesac]

A decade ago before the masses of people understood what the Internet was about, the term "fine art photography" was often discussed on early web forums like Compuserve. When I set up my web site a decade ago, I included the term "fine art photography" in the html meta keywords for search engine reasons but even then disliked the term because it did not fit my form of landscape and nature photography art. I've since removed it from all my html code. I was never interested in capturing and then manipulating images by some creative art process as the vast majority currently engage in but rather capturing out in nature, visual moments in time reasonably close to what I experienced. All my subsequent post processing simply has a goal of producing the image moment. Considerable skill may be employed though that isn't really an art process unless one ventures into manipulating what they have raw captured. Oh I can do that haha, but it is not my personal style by choice and interest.

The art in my process is being able to recognize what is aesthetic out in nature and for the most part ends there. Much of the process of producing such images is not at all about an art process but rather a matter of hunting images in the outdoors visually sensing what is aesthetic and what is not. Once I find the general locations, then yes there is an artistic element of refining the best frame under conditions available. That is a combination of art and skills. For instance one can find through various skills and knowledge a landscape with beautiful wildflowers, trees, peaks, sky etc. To distill that once the general scene is in front of a photographer and set up one's tripod location is not always so obvious. It is what separates much of my own work from others and rises out of a sense of my internal aesthetic combined with experience about natural landscapes and natural science knowledge.

Since myriad former 35mm SLR photographers and myriad new young generation photographers have embraced digital cameras, especially those joining the DSLR ranks, much of what used to be photography in all its forms and processes have been discarded, reinvented, and generaly turned upsidedown and shook up. Photography has always evolved however since the mid 1990's change has been profound. Although we are currently awash in images everywhere, few are exceptional, especially larger images where more skill must be employed throughout the capture and post processing. There are a great many good images being produced now and presented to the public however again few are exceptional. To recognize such, one just needs to stroll down any higher quality outdoor art and craft fair or peruse local urban galleries. We large format photographers produce work that has the potential due to image size alone to be placed in a higher art value category. Unfortunately the vast noise created by all other relatively good media and imagery tends to drown out highest quality images such that the majority of the public is not much aware of much beyond the average good quality of those most aggressive in getting their work in front of the public's attention.

[Jay DeFehr]

Jay,

Innovation may indeed be a hallmark of what comes to be known as great art through the ages, but is the intent of all great artists to innovate? Did Lennon and McCartney decide to change the state of music in 1963? Or did they write songs that built on traditions that came before them, songs that they thought were upbeat and fun and danceable? Looking at an artist's career through the lens of history can distort the original intent, if there ever WAS an original intent, and relying on an artist's own proclamations of his or her genius or desire to change the world should be taken with a grain of salt. It is my belief that innovation happens in small, unpredictable ways and not usually by "great men" who set out on that course (although that does happen). Reinhardt, by your own example, did not necessarily set out to change the finger-picking style of the day and "invent" a new style of guitar jazz; he was forced to change his technique for practical reasons. Marlowe and Shakespeare were some of the first to implement the use of blank verse--and subsequently change the course of English poetic structure--but it can be argued they did so in order to make their work more accessible to their audiences and not because they wanted to visit a new literary art form upon the world.

Jonathan


EDIT: In short, I think most often creativity leads to innovation and not the other way around. Creativity usually involves an open and unfettered exploration of ideas, whereas the intention to innovate can box in creativity from the start.

Jonathan,

I think there's some misunderstanding regarding what I mean by innovation. I don't mean to suggest that great artists, scientists, etc., innovate for the sake of innovating, but that innovation results from an unconstrained mindset, and a willingness to experiment, fail, and experiment again. Innovation is the core of creativity, and one cannot extricate one from the other.

As for your example of the Beatles, I think it would be hard to make the argument that they didn't actively and intentionally experiment with new forms and themes, and so it would be equally hard to argue they didn't actively and intentionally innovate.

Rheinhardt innovated out of necessity, but that's not the same as saying he did so unintentionally, and while he probably didn't predict the influence his innovation would have on jazz guitar, his deviation from the style of his contemporaries was certainly intentional, and progressive.

As I wrote in a previous post, innovation isn't necessarily groundbreaking, or revolutionary, though groundbreaking and revolutionary changes are impossible without it, but most often the result of discipline and diligence and building on previous art. In other words, innovation results from building on the past, not from rejecting it.

Innovation is at the very center of creativity, and every great artist is also an innovator, including Brahms, from Rick's example. It's no accident of history that the most revered artists are also the most innovative, and it's no conspiracy by the art elite, but fundamental to the creative act.

[jcoldslabs]

Jay,

Thanks for the clarification. I think we're on the same page on this. That's what I meant by the P.S. to my last post. Creativity in its purest, best sense leads to innovation and new ways of doing and thinking by its very nature. But I see now that you mean innovation in its local sense, not the global sense, as an offshoot of the creative act. The Beatles playing around with new instrumentation, time signatures and melodies is innovation on a very local scale, but in aggregate over the course of 12 albums it led to the group's legacy as pioneers.

I wonder if we haven't all experienced this: some well meaning friend or acquaintance will say, "You're really creative," in response to seeing some of our work. It is a compliment I have trouble accepting because I understand that little of my work is really creative in the way I want it to be. Most of the time when I am framing an image I am aware that it has been done before, that I am not breaking any new ground. I click the shutter anyway because I love the process of using the camera and making the image. This is where your "informed dialogue with the past" comes into play. Because I have an awareness of much of what has come before me photographically, I am aware of how well (or how poorly) my own work pushes at the boundaries of what has been done and what is possible. This doesn't change my enjoyment as a practitioner of the photographic art, but it does allow me to measure my own work against what has come before. So while an outsider might think my photographs are "really creative," I can't help but see them as part of a continuum stretching back into the past and therefore I judge them informed by that knowledge. It's not that I think my photographs aren't any good, but when I'm being honest I can admit that my own level of creativity and therefore innovation is rather low. Yesterday, for example, I posted a scenic shot of east Portland with Mount St. Helens in the distance. I think it is a perfectly acceptable image, but there is not much creative or new or innovative about it.

But I'm not going to let that stop me. Photography is dead! Long live photography!

Jonathan

[rdenney]

This will be short--I'm on my iPhone.

I'm trying separate innovation and creativity, rather than conflate them. And I think those about whom I am complaining do so, too, else they would not so carefully use the word uniquely.

Everyone experiments with what they haven't done before, and they seek to make something from nothing. That is creativity. But when I see a portrait of a college kid barely removed from Arbus's freaks, accompanying an artist's statement about innovation, with "honesty" sprinkled in for good measure, I think the more he tries to be original, the more he fails. It is the claimed objective that bothers me.

Or maybe it's a photo of the downtrodden, or crumbling buildings, or ugly industrial fixtures, or vacant suburban teens, or tacky strip malls, or rusting carcasses of cars, or rotting corpses, or any of the other "innovative" contemporary subjects. or it could pretty rocks, but those don't usually come with such claims.

It's like kids letting their hair grow or mutilating themselves with piercings or tattoos. They think they are being original and rebellious, when really they are just repeating a time-worn pattern.

Occasionally, someone will come along that really does set a new direction, but more than anything that exposes the wannabes.

When photography spelled the death of painting, it wasn't painting-as-art that was doomed. It was painting-as-utility. Now, photography-as-utility is, in many cases, so easy that the highly skilled are no longer needed. There is utilitarian photography that still requires high skills, of course, but less and less.

Art is different. People need expression. Nearly everyone sings, if only to themselves. Many doodle on napkins, some quite expressively, who have no artistic pretensions. There are doubtless more amateur musicians, who have spent as much time developing their craft as most here, than expressive photographers. The vast billions who make photos with their phones are simply gathering mementos, and they have little expressive intent. As photographers, we hope to be expressive, and I don't think we need to be concerned with those who do not. All of those amateur musicians have and are driven by expressive intent, and they are focused on it. They don't worry about those who play digital samplers invalidating that expression or skill. (Utility musicians do worry about that, and rightly.) Few amateur musicians desire, however, to do what has not been done before. Does that make them inexpressive, or invalidate their artistry?

I sure hope not. Art depends more on them than on innovators.

Yes, I'm trying to comfort myself as much as anyone.

Summary: Creativity and expression should be built into art rather than innovation built onto it.

Rick "not worried about art being dead, whatever the state of 'fine art'" Denney

[Tony Evans]

Look at Jay Schlegel's portraits in the latest issue of View Camera. If you don't see these as Fine Art you have lost your soul.

[Brian C. Miller]

This will be short--I'm on my iPhone.

...

Rick "not worried about art being dead, whatever the state of 'fine art'" Denney

No, it's, "Rick 'no, this is not a thesis' Denney"

(Did you know you can get full keyboards for iPhones?)

Back on topic. Fine art really is art done with finely honed skill. Basically, anything that you'd look at and say, "It takes a master to do that!" So any time someone looks at your photographs and asks, "how did you do that?" you know that you've produced fine art. Through the "magic" of sweat, blood, and tears, you have labored to produce.

Edward Leedskalnin, a stone cutter from Latvia, built the Coral Castle in Florida. Just about everybody now is asking, "how did he do that?" Even though there are photographs of him at work, nobody seems to believe that he used the lever, pulleys, and a jack. What he created can only be called fine art. It took master-level skill to cut and move those blocks himself. In another hundred years, people will still be impressed with what he did. Now, how much of that was "innovative?" None of it. But it's still a work by a master.

[rdenney]

No, it's, "Rick 'no, this is not a thesis' Denney"

(Did you know you can get full keyboards for iPhones?)

Back on topic. Fine art really is art done with finely honed skill. Basically, anything that you'd look at and say, "It takes a master to do that!" So any time someone looks at your photographs and asks, "how did you do that?" you know that you've produced fine art. Through the "magic" of sweat, blood, and tears, you have labored to produce.

Edward Leedskalnin, a stone cutter from Latvia, built the Coral Castle in Florida. Just about everybody now is asking, "how did he do that?" Even though there are photographs of him at work, nobody seems to believe that he used the lever, pulleys, and a jack. What he created can only be called fine art. It took master-level skill to cut and move those blocks himself. In another hundred years, people will still be impressed with what he did. Now, how much of that was "innovative?" None of it. But it's still a work by a master.

IPhone keyboards don't fit in my pocket while I'm standing in a Starbucks. But nevermind.

I do not think art depends solely on skill, though without skill the artists vision can find no expression. As I suggested earlier, Art = Craft X Choices. This was actually suggested by a musician friend on a music forum, but it applies here, too. Without craft, art fails because the expression fails. Without expressive choices, art fails in lieu of a mere demonstration of craft.

I am often struck by the skill that people display without their work having anything to do with art. (Recent example: I observed a master Morse-code operator copy incoming code at about 30 words/minute--which is very fast--while carrying on a conversation with me. He was typing the Morse into his logging computer while we talked. And what he was copying was a call sign and an exchange that could not have been guessed by context. When he was done typing, he reached over and sent a response on a bug--more skill required--without even pausing his conversation with me. It was an amazing display of skill, but I doubt anyone would call it fine art, including the operator.)

Fine art may indeed demand fine skill, but it takes something more than that, too.

Rick "for whom craft must serve some purpose" Denney

[Mike Anderson]

....Fine art really is art done with finely honed skill. Basically, anything that you'd look at and say, "It takes a master to do that!"

Doesn't intended purpose come into play, for instance if Richard Avedon made a Gatorade ad, is it fine art?

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Rick,

I don't think creativity and innovation can be separated very neatly, and I don't think innovation necessarily means doing something that hasn't been done before-- though that certainly qualifies-- as much as doing something that has been done before, in a slightly different way.

Going back to Brahms -- though he is seen by many as a great academician and traditionalist, Arnold Schoenberg paints quite a different picture in his lectures, Brahms the Progressive, which John Mangum cites here in reference to Brahms' Piano Concerto No. 1 -

Schoenberg liked the piece as a great example of “developing variation,” a Brahms innovation he discussed in his talks on “Brahms the Progressive.” The idea is really quite simple: Brahms would subject his thematic material to variations and transformations as soon as he introduced them, rather than waiting until the development section of a sonata-form movement. This allowed him to create larger structures from these constantly-developing materials.

The word, create can refer to making something from nothing, but in regular usage, creativity is used in a much more nuanced way, and doesn't necessarily imply creation of the new from whole cloth, but a way of thinking, working, or approaching a problem. Innovation, as a concept, is similarly nuanced. A groundbreaking, revolutionary development is certainly an innovation, but so is Brahms' incremental treatment described above.

I think you're being too hard on the authors of awkward artist's statements, and I disagree that "the more he tries to be original, the more he fails.", or at least I believe the more he fails, the more he'll succeed. As I've written, I think the idea of the accidental innovator is a romantic one, and innovation generally follows from dedicated effort, and multiple failures. The "portrait of a college kid barely removed from Arbus's freaks" is more likely a starting point than and end point, and a reasonable one given Arbus' place in the evolution of the medium relative to photographers beginning their careers now.

Regarding our rebellious youth, I'm not convinced they think they're being original-- though many might be ignorant of the history of the traditions they're continuing-- as much as they're choosing a peer group, for diverse reasons we can't reliably infer from their appearances. In other words, I don't think young people grow their hair or pierce themselves to reject something, but to embrace something.

Regarding amateur musicians who do not experiment or innovate, yes, they are lesser artists than those who do experiment and innovate, because they are less creative, but I don't accept your claim that few amateur musicians are creative. Logic demands that the exceptional are a minority, but I don't extrapolate from that to claim the majority are fundamentally dissimilar to the minority -- they are different by degree rather than by kind. I'm not sure what you mean by "Art depends more on them than on innovators.", presumably referring to those who are content to express the ideas and innovations of others. That seems to me a paradoxical statement.

[Jay DeFehr]

No, it's, "Rick 'no, this is not a thesis' Denney"

(Did you know you can get full keyboards for iPhones?)

Back on topic. Fine art really is art done with finely honed skill. Basically, anything that you'd look at and say, "It takes a master to do that!" So any time someone looks at your photographs and asks, "how did you do that?" you know that you've produced fine art. Through the "magic" of sweat, blood, and tears, you have labored to produce.

Edward Leedskalnin, a stone cutter from Latvia, built the Coral Castle in Florida. Just about everybody now is asking, "how did he do that?" Even though there are photographs of him at work, nobody seems to believe that he used the lever, pulleys, and a jack. What he created can only be called fine art. It took master-level skill to cut and move those blocks himself. In another hundred years, people will still be impressed with what he did. Now, how much of that was "innovative?" None of it. But it's still a work by a master.

If it wasn't innovative, why is there no other place like it?