Is there such a thing as fine art photography anymore?

[Curt]

When did it become fine art? I thought it was still high art.

If I like it, that's fine.

Because there is so much visual overload it makes the best art so much better and enjoyable.

[jcoldslabs]

If I make photographs intending them to be "art," does that imbue them with the quality of art-ness? And if I purposely take snapshots that lack all artistry does this mean they can never be considered art because the intent is absent?

Duchamp and Warhol, among others, answered the "What is art?" question decades ago. Art is what people (collectors, museums, consumers, the public at large) say it is, and this changes over time.

Jonathan

[Darin Boville]

I cringe when I hear the phrase "fine art photography." Sounds like sunday painters. Stand tall and call it what it is: call it photography or call it art. What the heck is fine art painting or fine art sculpture? Yes, people will be confused at first and think you are a wedding photographer or whatever but that just gives you a chance to talk about you work. Welcome it.

--Darin

[Darin Boville]

Cyrus,

Theres nothing new in decrying the ease and ubiquity of photography, and lots of people who think of themselves as artists have little or no education in the arts. I think of art as a conversation between culture and history, and anyone who walks into the conversation without a solid background in it, isn't likely to have much of interest to contribute, whatever their skills.

Hey Jay, given the painful (painfully bad!) nature of most art writing you risk a bit of self-parody here. Do you really think, on the whole, that the "conversation" is for the most part an interesting one to begin with? Do you really think those poor, uneducated artists want to join in in the first place? (I just wrote "in in in" three times in a row--cool or what?)

--Darin

[Steve Smith]

Is photography as a fine art form, dead?

Photography is just a medium the same as painting or sculpture. Just as you can paint a nice picture or a door frame or you can sculpt a piece of stone into a figure statue or a lintel for a window, you can use photography to make something nice to look at and hang on your wall or to illustrate the instructions for putting together some flat pack furniture.

All of those mediums can be used to create art or even fine art but they are more often used for something more utilitarian.

The medium should not be confused for the thing it is being used to create.


Steve.

[cyrus]

Art is what people (collectors, museums, consumers, the public at large) say it is

Yikes. Dogs playing pool and velvet paintings of Elvis?

Anyway I guess I'm les concerned about the semantics of what "fine art" photography means as I am about whether there's any meaning in artistic (versus utilitarian) photography or any other artistic medium (painting, sculpture etc) Not only is the image now ubiquitous and cheap and easy to reproduce, there's no real distinction between art and decor. Once we supposedly agreed that a can of soup or a urinal or random splashes of paint on a canvas can be art, well, then what's "not-art"?

[jcoldslabs]

Yikes. Dogs playing pool and velvet paintings of Elvis?

Even "paint by number" kits.

"Every Man a Rembrandt!"

http://americanhistory.si.edu/paint/rembrandt.html

Jonathan

[lecarp]

I want

Yikes. Dogs playing pool and velvet paintings of Elvis?

Anyway I guess I'm les concerned about the semantics of what "fine art" photography means as I am about whether there's any meaning in artistic (versus utilitarian) photography or any other artistic medium (painting, sculpture etc) Not only is the image now ubiquitous and cheap and easy to reproduce, there's no real distinction between art and decor. Once we supposedly agreed that a can of soup or a urinal or random splashes of paint on a canvas can be art, well, then what's "not-art"?

I want more than this. I want Dogs playing pool with Elvis painted on velvet in a Chinese sweat shop.

[John Jarosz]

When I started personal photography 35+ years ago I made a conscious decision not to become a "Fine Art Photographer". So I never have been required to conform to the norms dictated by the galleries, critics, or consumers. All my photography is done for me. I have some nice images and wonderful experiences. The craft of photography gives me an avenue to express things graphically. When I go I won't care if my images end up in a landfill or a museum. Neither will anyone else.

[jcoldslabs]

I'm not sure I understand why there needs to be a distinction between what is art and what is not. Who is the arbiter of what is and is not art? Should we appoint someone? The art police?

Who says art and utility have to be separate things? What about vintage cars? Quilts? Fabergé enameled clocks? Tiffany lamps? One gets you to the store for some milk, one keeps you warm at night, one tells time, and one lights up your living room, but can't they also be works of art in their own right? As for the difference between art and decor, I've seen some well coordinated Frank Lloyd Wright or Greene and Greene interiors that blur the line.

Jonathan