Is there such a thing as fine art photography anymore?

[rdenney]

The Online Photographer mentioned Bill Jay's vision, and this is what Bill wrote on the subject:

(Bill Jay, Camera Arts, April/May 1981, emphasis added)

So what was true 31 years ago seems to be still running strong.

Here's the real points to ponder:
1: What does it mean to photographically transcend self?
2: What does "paying of dues" really mean?
3: What constitutes a "serious worker?"

It would seem to me that answering those questions is likelly to lead one to the same outcomes as Mr. Jay decries. If there was ever a question that invited unintelligible artists' statements, what it means to transcend self surely ought to be the leader.

I think it's easier to define paying dues and working seriously. But I think those descriptions apply a classical musician model for photographers, while those about whom Jay complains are rock stars who learned riffs in garages and basements with their high-school buddies. It's not about subtlety and perfection.

Rick "serious, and paid some dues, but firmly stuck with himself" Denney

[Drew Wiley]

The complaint sure sounds like a currently applicable set of stereotypes to me. But no stereotype is a universal, just something frequent enough to constitute an obvious observation. And basically, this same list would equally apply to any number of visual art genres, over quite a few decades. As per the primary term itself, "fine art" is just about as
valid as "fine doughnuts". If you can sell it to someone who can stomp it into a picture frame, it would seem to fit the category, even with a muddy shoeprint all over it.

[John Brady]

The obvious answer is both. Why all the hand wringing over such an utterly naive question with an obvious answer that was fought for and won 30-40 years ago?

It still profoundly amazes me that so many people here are so stuck oftentimes in pre-60s aesthetics and ideology.

No hand wringing here, I actually found the patrons statement to be ignorant and humorous at the same time. I was posting her comment as satire.

Now with that said, I personally don't like the fine art label put on anyone's art work. The market will determine just how fine it is, not the artist.

I'm of the, if the dogs eat it, it's good dog food, school.

Just my two pennies...

[RichardSperry]

I'm of the, if the dogs eat it, it's good dog food, school.

Do you sell dog food?

It makes a difference if you do. If a photographer(or his or her agents) can double the sales or double the price of the prints by calling it fine art, then so be it. Most people whore themselves one way or another to pay the rent.

[Drew Wiley]

Dogs will eat anything. If you want a valid test, see what nitpicky cats will eat.

[John Brady]

Do you sell dog food?

It makes a difference if you do. If a photographer(or his or her agents) can double the sales or double the price of the prints by calling it fine art, then so be it. Most people whore themselves one way or another to pay the rent.

Only fine dog food...

www.timeandlight.com (both kibbles and canned offerings here)

[RichardSperry]

They eat vomit.

But you can't sell vomit really, novelty vomit is inedible and you can sell that. Maybe sell prints of vomit, fine art prints.

[Drew Wiley]

I've accidentally walked into certain tourist galleries that successfully sell vomit
on a routine basis.

[Chuck P.]

Dogs also eat crap...............

[Brian C. Miller]

Crap has been sold as fine art, too. This doesn't really set a bottom limit on what "fine art" can be, does it? It basically comes down to the concept that if someone with megabucks is willing to shell out for something, that makes it art. Whether or not it goes on the wall. Whether or not the common person would recognize it as being a "work of art" or just a bag of trash or a pile of feces.

And thus we have "insider" and "outsider" art. And "outsider" art is only art if it piques the interest of the "insiders." Otherwise it's a pile of trash produced by some looney yokel.