What is fine art photography?

[Bob Fowler]

"If the naked lady is in focus it is porn and if she is out of focus it is fine art."

THAT is the best definition I've ever seen!

[Graeme Hird]

Good troll GS - some might even say it was artful.

[Richard Rau]

There are a lot of museums that put art on display and that art is recoginized as fine art. There are great museums that house great art, The National Gallery, MOMA, to name a few. There are people who call themselves curators who have the job of determining what is fine art and what is not, what to display and what not to display. Are their decisions any more educated as to what makes fine art any better than anyone elses? Probably. Then again, probably not. I have seen a lot of bad art, in my opinion, in some very well respected museums. That is not to say that the old saying holds true, art is in the eye of the beholder. A fine example is MOBA, The Museum of Bad Art. They also have a curator and a board of directors whose sole purpose is to seek out and display bad art. Check their web site, it is quite humorous. Just because you slap a frame around a painting or a photograph and hang it on a wall does not necessarily make it fine art or even just art. What it does do is that it calls attention to the work and makes us take a harder look at someone's conception or vision and presents a window into another person's world. Ansel's proclamation that art gives life affirmation may be profound, perhaps even poetic, and wouldn't our lives be awfully boring with out it. Bottom line is, if it looks like art to you, it must be art. If it doesn't, it may get thrown away in a dumpster and eventually it could wind up in a frame, on a wall, in the Museum of Bad Art or in somebody's home. And it could become art anyway to someone else, good or bad!

[william_3670]

"To have dared...and to have been right."

[mark lindsey]

I think it's one of the forums over at photo.net......

[Leonard Metcalf]

To add to the pot...

To the valuer at 'Christies' or a collector fine art photography would imply that it is collectable and would increase in value over time. An investment.

To an artist art is about communication of an idea / emotion / concept etc. (well that is what art school told me art was).

To an other artist it is about creating for pleasure of viewing (to be hung on someones wall).

For a photographer it is... (which is why I am asking photographers)

I ask as I was firstly trained as an artist not as a photographer, all of my photography training was to produce art. Which is probably why I don't run a business as a comercial photographer. And try to sell my works as art (framed to go on walls for the pleasure of others).

Sorry I don't get much joy out of photo.net and prefer to discuss with people who have something in common with me. A love for large format photography.

Thanks for the replies... and hope there are some more opinions out there... Len

[Graeme Hird]

Leonard,



In your last post you mention that you were trained as an artist - not a photographer, and to an artist, art is about communicating ideas or creating pleasure for other viewers.



Can you tell me why you think photographers are not artists? Do you think that photographers are not trying to communicate ideas/emotions/concepts? Do you think that photographers do not create prints for the pleasure of viewing?



If you can remove your own predisposition against photographers as artists, you can answer your own question. You know what "Fine Art" is from an "Artist's" point of view - photographers have the same point of view, because they are artists who choose to work in the medium of photography (well some of them are - the ones who call their work Fine Art Photography).

Graeme

[Leonard Metcalf]

Dear Graeme,

It is not that I don't know what I think art is, it is asking to find out what others think fine art photography is, so that I can better understand peoples comments etc. I definately think that photographers are artists - though I am not sure how many photographers think they are (often prefering to descibe themselves as photographers).

I didn't say that I, as an artist, believe that art is about communicating ideas, I said that we were taught that this is what art is. (it seemed to be quite different from what others were being taught at various times in the history of art training). The reality is that each has a personal vision of what there art is about. Hence the artists statement.

I have found myself using the term to descibe my own work, and having an understanding of what practioners (the members of this forum) mean / understand / imply is important.

I also think that photographers convey thoughts, feelings, concepts generally better than many other mediums. Asthetics is definately important (fortunately a matter for the personal).

Perhaps to the lay person a fine art photographer is one who has been elivated by critics and curators to the position of collectability.

So Graeme, what does the term fine art photography mean to you? or perhaps there is another troll in the garden!

Len

[Bob._3483]

" or perhaps there is another troll in the garden! "

That was unneccesary.

This is the way all these kinds of discussions end up - in a holy war where someone decides to stop arguing their case and make personal attacks. This is *not* photo.net....

Play nicely.

Cheers,

[Leonard Metcalf]

Sorry... thought it was funny rather than offensive when I wrote it (referencing an earlier coment).

Graeme, please don't take it personaly... I am looking to engage in stimulating converstation...

Len