Fine Art Photography

[scrichton]

Am I deluded but as I have been in the whole web 2.0 community structures etc ... is it just me or do some community members personal sites which have emblazoned " Fine Art Photography by XXXXX " as their header lead much to believed as you peruse.

I would like to pose the question where the line between fine art and personal art or dare I say it plain bad art starts and end. I must admit my own pre-conception of fine art photography is of large deep images that are normally of either conecptual story based nature or of very graphic landscapes and abstracts.

Has this become that the true dis-tatse of the nations of the world really do beleive a well taken portrait of their child is " fine art" or is it like bokeh or Boakey (if you are scottish and describing a rising sickening feeling) a term bandied about whenever there is even so much as an out of focus area behind a compositional subject.

I hope we will all have some nice constructive arguments on the situation, just I must admit the more of these sites I find, the polarised nature of them is quite apparent.

Steven

[artedetimo]

To some "fine" refers to the grand effort to conceptualize, craft, create, and breath life into some inanimate object with the full focus of thought and passion that the mind can offer. To others its a word that helps give them a notion of credibility.

The values that works of art have acquired have changed and shifted throughout history, but motivations for creating them have always been tied up in what and who we are as people. I know your post is trying to be provocative, but I think you are just talking about a set of words that place some set of values on the work. The merit of a piece of art goes beyond those words and is related to the underlying motivation. Finding out what motivates an artist is up to you :)

[Mark Stahlke]

Fine art photography is a grainy black & white print of a mundane subject shot by a dead white guy, printed at 5x7, framed at 20x24 and hung in an obscure uptown gallery where it is admired by pony tailed, black clad cognoscenti who sip white wine from champagne flutes (Tres chic, non? Mais oui, c'est la meme.) and stroke each other's egos by nodding knowingly at insipid comments about the artist's vision.

No, I'm not bitter.

[tim atherton]

Nah I think you're mistaking it for real art, Fine Art Photography is a black and white print of a slightly rounded nude woman laying over the curve of a boulder in a forest/shaping her contours to the contours of a tree trunk; or a series of wooden pilings of the end of a dock taken with a long exposure so the water is slightly blurry; or a desert/beach sand dune photographed as an abstract with deep shadow and strong highlight

[photographs42]

This link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_arts
Yields this defination.

Fine art
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Fine arts)
Jump to: navigation, search
Fine art refers to arts that are "concerned and designates a limited number of visual art forms, including painting, sculpture, architecture and printmaking. Schools, institutes, and other organizations still use the term to indicate a traditional perspective on the visual arts, often implying an association with classic or academic art.
The word "fine" does not so much denote the quality of the artwork in question, but the purity of the discipline. This definition tends to exclude visual art forms that could be considered craftwork or applied art, such as textiles. The more recent term visual arts is widely considered to be a more inclusive and descriptive phrase for today's variety of current art practices, and for the multitude of mediums in which high art is now more widely recognized to occur. Ultimately, the term fine in 'fine art' comes from the concept of Final Cause, or purpose, or end, in the philosophy of Aristotle. The Final Cause of fine art is the art object itself; it is not a means to another end except perhaps to please those who behold it.
An alternative, if flippant, reference to "fine art," is capital "A" art, or, art with a capital "A."
The term is still often used outside of the arts to denote when someone has perfected an activity to a very high level of skill. For example, one might metaphorically say that "Pelé took football to the level of a fine art."
That fine art is seen as being distinct from applied arts is largely the result of an issue raised in Britain by the conflict between the followers of the Arts and Crafts Movement, including William Morris, and the early modernists, including Virginia Woolf and the Bloomsbury Group. The former sought to bring socialist principles to bear on the arts by including the more commonplace crafts of the masses within the realm of the arts, while the modernists sought to keep artistic endeavour exclusive, esoteric, and elitist.
Confusion often occurs when people mistakenly refer to the Fine Arts but mean the Performing Arts (Music, Dance, Drama, etc).
An academic course of study in fine art may include a Master of Fine Arts degree.

Jerome

[tim atherton]

additionally, in photography, "fine art photography" seems to have more recently become separated, as a descriptive term, from art/art photography (or perhaps contemporary art photography?)...

The works of Struth, Gursky, Mann, R Adams, Nixon, Crewdson, Wall, Esser, Sugimoto et al don't seem to be considered (or at least described) as Fine Art Photography (even if the N Americans among them might have received an MFA or such)

[chris jordan]

Fine Art has 150-180 grains per square inch of print. Medium has 80-120 grains, and Coarse Art has 40-60 grains. Anything below that is condered too rough to be art. Above Fine Art there is Very Fine, which is 220-240 grains per inch, then Extra Fine which is 280-320 grains, and finally Super Fine, which is 360-600 grains. Above that it is so smooth that it cannot be considered art.

There are also four grades of art: amateur, personal, commercial, and industrial. Amateur art is usually the best, especially in the eyes of the amateur who did it. Personal Art is a category commonly found on the website of graphic designers; they intend their Personal Art to be distinguished from Impersonal Art, which is everything else they do. Commercial Art is all other art except Industrial, which is just Commercial Art printed so big that it takes forklifts and cranes to move it around.

Then there is Performing Art, which is what some guys do with 8x10 cameras when there are lots of other people around.

There is also Analog and Digital Art. Analog Art is when you use film to photograph your girlfriend Ana sitting on a log. Digital Art is a fancy word for finger painting.

Finally there is just Art, but no one knows what that is yet.

[tim atherton]

... :)

[Pete Skerys]

In art school we often discussed the nature of art - what makes it so etc.

Of course this is a very slippery and often devisive topic, one that soaked up a lot of heated discussions in art circles throughout the last century.

Fundamentally, the conclusion we arived at - and the one I adhere to - is that art is whatever is/has/could be exhibited and is described as such by an artist.

To break this down a little:
1. the item/object (even concept) needed to be accessible to the public realm
2. the artist must designate it as art, and
3. the artist is someone who exhibits (artworks) in public.

Note: this definition is one based on notions of "contemporary art" rather than "fine art".
Fine art, to my mind, is work slanted more towards high craft skill - the object dominates the idea. Whereas contemporary art has a greater focus on the intellectual concept woven within the art work - the idea over the object. (Therefore an apparent laking in technical skill is acceptable, even celebrated.)
So, by this definition, there's no such thing as "personal art". Personal work is something else, such as ideas development, therapy, experiment or the like.
Such definitions are by their very nature full of holes, but i think they're often useful to contemplate. (Then forget about!)
just my 2c worth.
pete

[tim atherton]

Digital Art is a fancy word for finger painting.

mind you.... I recently worked on some exquisite early 18th Century Chinese finger painting whereby the artist would grow his finger nail and then then end would be split like a pen nib and he then used it to create the most fantastic scrolls

[Colin Graham]

Put me down for 8 square feet of that coarse art.

[domenico Foschi]

Has this become that the true dis-tatse of the nations of the world really do beleive a well taken portrait of their child is " fine art" or is it like bokeh or Boakey (if you are scottish and describing a rising sickening feeling) a term bandied about whenever there is even so much as an out of focus area behind a compositional subject.

I hope we will all have some nice constructive arguments on the situation, just I must admit the more of these sites I find, the polarised nature of them is quite apparent.

Steven


"I hope we will all have some nice constructive arguments on the situation, just I must admit the more of these sites I find, the polarised nature of them is quite apparent."


Well, looks like you started the thread with right foot (literally).

"Has this become that the true dis-tatse of the nations of the world really do beleive a well taken portrait of their child is " fine art" or is it like bokeh or Boakey (if you are scottish and describing a rising sickening feeling) a term bandied about whenever there is even so much as an out of focus area behind a compositional subject."

I believe bashing other people's work is not a very effective way to change the "status quo". I find a polite and constructive criticism much more effective.

I am saddened to read sarcastic posts of people whose work I respect.
People who have reached artistic maturity usually know what destructive criticism means.

[Lazybones]

People who have reached artistic maturity usually know what destructive criticism means.

I don't.

[tim atherton]

Originally Posted by domenico Foschi
People who have reached artistic maturity usually know what destructive criticism means.


I don't.

shouldn't that be "I haven't"?

[paulr]

The traditional definition of "fine art" was meant to distinguish it from all the other "arts" ... applied arts, liberal arts, performing arts, martial arts, etc. etc... (presumeably because we need to be able to distinguish between philosophy, painting, and sword fighting).

The newer definitions (black and white of a nude woman on a sand dune, etc.) have more to do with contemporary usage. For some reason, the term has been taken over by people who do very traditional, crafted, modernist-style photography ... so it can confuse people when you use it to describe other kinds of work.

I don't think "fine art" is a value judjement. The world is full of crappy fine art.

[Jim Galli]

Am I deluded but as I have been in the whole web 2.0 community structures etc ... is it just me or do some community members personal sites which have emblazoned " Fine Art Photography by XXXXX " as their header lead much to believed as you peruse.

I would like to pose the question where the line between fine art and personal art or dare I say it plain bad art starts and end. I must admit my own pre-conception of fine art photography is of large deep images that are normally of either conecptual story based nature or of very graphic landscapes and abstracts.

Has this become that the true dis-tatse of the nations of the world really do beleive a well taken portrait of their child is " fine art" or is it like bokeh or Boakey (if you are scottish and describing a rising sickening feeling) a term bandied about whenever there is even so much as an out of focus area behind a compositional subject.

I hope we will all have some nice constructive arguments on the situation, just I must admit the more of these sites I find, the polarised nature of them is quite apparent.

Steven

Scrichton, tohse aer the wosrt 4 parargahps I'ev seen in qiute a wihile.

My waht a boering world wehre all ture atr colud be pigenhold into wahteever categoerical you tinhk is corected.

[Lightbender]

This is a sad state of photography right now. "Fine Art" photography is (and allways has been) a marketing term. These days anyone can tag a business card or a web site with "Fine Art" or "Professional". More than ever before, buyer beware.

A friend of mine just paid $1500 for a photographer at his daughters wedding (part of an all-inclusive package). The guy shot everything handheld with on-camera flash, and only gave them a CD with the images on it.

Also consider the different marketing schemes of digital printing. Calling the prints "Carbon print" "Giclee", etc to make them sound like an ounce of work went into them.
Truth be told, it takes alot of work to setup a digital process correctly and process the images.

[tim atherton]

This is a sad state of photography right now. "Fine Art" photography is (and allways has been) a marketing term. These days anyone can tag a business card or a web site with "Fine Art" or "Professional". More than ever before, buyer beware.

A friend of mine just paid $1500 for a photographer at his daughters wedding (part of an all-inclusive package). The guy shot everything handheld with on-camera flash, and only gave them a CD with the images on it.

Also consider the different marketing schemes of digital printing. Calling the prints "Carbon print" "Giclee", etc to make them sound like an ounce of work went into them.
Truth be told, it takes alot of work to setup a digital process correctly and process the images.

wasn't your friend a bit dumb hiring an artist to photograph their wedding? What they needed was a wedding photographer. Do they hire the dentist to do their plumbing too?

[paulr]

Also consider the different marketing schemes of digital printing. Calling the prints "Carbon print" "Giclee", etc to make them sound like an ounce of work went into them....

I'm having a slow day at work, too, so I have nothing against a troll. But at least make it an original one. Beat a dead horse long and hard enough, your friends will start worrying about you.

[scrichton]

I apologise to everyone. Jim for my grammer. Unfortunately I am unable to form paragraphs properly and have a real problem with it. Close to dyslexia, which has been tested a good few times now. Not that this is an excuse, however posting to a forum is not the best place for me sometimes.


I will pick my words more carefully in the future and try not to write anything late at night again.

What I was trying to get at is where does the line between something being considered in a commercial and professioanl form, art or otherwise. Fine art being a term that is linked very closely to photography and the sale of photography not commissioned by specific areas. Normally expressive "art" as a whole.

My girlfriend currently is starting a film production company after last week winning a Scottish Student BAFTA. No mean feat. She however is professionally competing with people who sell, as the photographers I targeted, films and production values that do not properly fall into the professional artisty or even the artistry of the medium.

Myself as a professional in the development market of web applications and databases have the issue there is always the "person down the road" who says they are a web designer and undercuts or seriously devalues others work. The client I had been with today has been in a two year contract for an internal database tracking the moral and correct advice of independent financial advisors. The database they have in access when looked at if screen put side by side, was one jumbled table that would have stretched 25 feet!! However this money spent was 6 figures and the company left them high and dry.

If my misguided point I was trying to raise about fine art photography has been mis-construed as an attack or as non-constructive critism I apologise. I am not a professional photographer and do not claim to have fine art photography. I have pleasing shots. Nothing more.

Oh and $1500 wedding story. One of my clients has a major problem with this kind of attitiude. A well established photographer who pretty much introduced the documentatry style wedding album to the uk, he has found all too often having business stolen by people who attach themselves to the "modern wedding" photographer. This means badly taken dissapointing shots, with dissapointed clients that apologise for claiming he was mis-quoting or similar for his work.

Once again, sorry in the future I will be quiet or get someone else to write these for me.

Steven

[Andy Eads]

Steven,
Please continue writing in this forum. We need you; we need each other. I think some of the sharp responses are from those of us who pour our souls into a photograph only to have someone demean it. The comment would go something like, "Your photograph can't be fine art because it is not fine art made in the same way (or of the same subject, etc.) as Mr. F. Art's work was made."
It takes guts to stick to doing what moves you. Best to you and your girlfriend as you pursue your "art."
Andy

[Lazybones]

shouldn't that be "I haven't"?

No, it sounds stupider the way I wrote it.

[tim atherton]

frack - let's try that again...

there was supposed to be a :) ...

[Chris Strobel]

Fine Art has 150-180 grains per square inch of print. Medium has 80-120 grains, and Coarse Art has 40-60 grains. Anything below that is condered too rough to be art. Above Fine Art there is Very Fine, which is 220-240 grains per inch, then Extra Fine which is 280-320 grains, and finally Super Fine, which is 360-600 grains. Above that it is so smooth that it cannot be considered art.



LOL!

[tim atherton]

I've just been reading something on looking at contemporary art and a couple of folk suggested I link to a blogpost on it

http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/04/looking-at-pictures.html

(I'm still reading the book - if I find any more interesting passages, I'll pass them along)

[scrichton]

I believe from personal experience if you rub superfine art all over glass it makes a nice focussing screen. Only in small rotational movements though :-D

Should have said earlier Chris that is a cracker.

[Brian K]

The term Fine Art is widely used and not fully defined. It is one way to differentiate photography that exists for personal expression on the part of the artist and has no real application for it's existence (except possibly display or decoration) and beween commercial photography, photo journalism, and snap shots.

One would think that asking what someone does for a living is a simple question and requires little thought or explanation on the part of the person being asked. However if you make your living selling prints through galleries it's not that easy to answer. If I tell the person that I'm a photographer they usually assume that I photograph weddings or kids. They then go on to tell me about the horrible wedding photos they got or some other story that i really don't want to hear about because it doesn't relate in any way to what I do. I also get a sense that when they assume that you're a wedding or baby photographer, that their respect level or interest in you just dropped. I think that is partly because nowadays anyone with a camera is a "photographer" and it's no longer considered by the masses to be a skilled or professional occupation.

I then try to explain that I'm a landscape photographer, only to have them counter with a question about the market for photographing people's landscaping. This simple question of what I do for a living becomes a game of 20 questions.

I feel weird telling them I'm an "art photographer" or an "artist" because that sounds really pretentious or delusional. I end up having to explain to people that I take landscape photographs and make prints which galleries sell. That sounds only slightly pretentious and is a lot longer than a one or two word job title but is accurate. I guess the term "fine art photographer" might be a simpler term to use, and is probably an easy way to communicate what I do, but it's also extremely pretentious sounding.

Those of you who make their profession selling art, how do you answer the question about what it is you do for a living? I'm really looking for a better answer.

[John Voss]

What I was trying to get at is where does the line between something being considered in a commercial and professioanl form, art or otherwise. Fine art being a term that is linked very closely to photography and the sale of photography not commissioned by specific areas. Normally expressive "art" as a whole.


Take a look at the websites of Rolfe Horn, or Chip Forelli, for instance, and look at the photographs they post there alongside their 'fine art' images. To me, their commercial, and fine art images are indistinguishable from each other (especially Horn). I guess the 'commercial' aspect to it is that they convinced an art director that what they had to offer worked well with the marketing plan the ad agency was looking at images for. I'm sure there are others on this site whose work is similarly flexible in its ultimate utility.

And, BTW, Chris, your satire is terrific! I smiled until it hurt!

[artedetimo]

. This simple question of what I do for a living becomes a game of 20 questions.

I feel weird telling them I'm an "art photographer" or an "artist" because that sounds really pretentious or delusional....

Those of you who make their profession selling art, how do you answer the question about what it is you do for a living? I'm really looking for a better answer.

Why do you worry about it so much. Someone who asks you what you do for a living is trying to define you by how their world works. Clearly the way you live doesn't fit into their world view. Their limits shouldn't interest you. It is similar to the ways minorities and women are oppressed. Black people aren't JUST black. Women aren't JUST Women etc. The asker's ignorance shouldn't make you feel like you are being pretentious or lesser, or anything other than who you are. Define yourself by who you know you are and if they don't understand it then what's it to you.

I have been facing this "what do you do?" thing for years. For a while I just started saying I was unemployed, since no one job was employing me (Don't make a living selling art, but have a whole host of things that I do, many related to the arts). Gradually the people who cared enough to know who I was realized that I was far from unemployed. Everyone one else pitied my then girlfriend now wife for being with a dead beat (Quite funny to me, though not so fun for my now wife). My wife having to deal with the behind the back comments was the only thing that started making me say something else. Now I just say artist or entrepreneur, depending on what I think would get the least response. Now I take the very question as a sign that the person doesn't care who I am, and only need some category to file me away in, and in business the higher the category the better.

Honestly I don't get why so many people think "artist" is pretentious. Maybe the hollywood stereotypes of how snobby gallery artists are supposed to be has sunken in way too deep, but every artist (at all levels) I have ever met has had a lot to offer in a warm and open way. Some artist offer, in their work and otherwise, good questions; some, good answers. Combine that with the reality that most artist's earn very little from their pursuits and do their art only for the sake of sharing it, and I say being an artist should be a title of honor, like being a teacher or a doctor. Artists are generous and insightful people by the very nature of what they do, and those are things I value. Where and when in our culture did creating honest and thoughtful work become so looked down upon? Be proud of who you are man!

[Brian K]

Artedetimo, I don't worry about what other's may think of me, but I am considerate of the feelings of others and coming across pretentious or snooty does not make the people that you are talking to comfortable. It can come across like you're trying to make yourself better than them and for some people, granted they have to have a pretty soft ego, they can feel demeaned.

There is status in our society to be considered an artist. The works of great artists are revered, viewed in our most honored places, when you call yourself an artist you make claim to being a member of the same club as Rembrandt, Picasso, Michelangelo, etc. You may not claim the same ability as them, but nevertheless by calling yourself an artist still claim them as a kind of peer.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Nah I think you're mistaking it for real art, Fine Art Photography is a black and white print of a slightly rounded nude woman laying over the curve of a boulder in a forest/shaping her contours to the contours of a tree trunk; or a series of wooden pilings of the end of a dock taken with a long exposure so the water is slightly blurry; or a desert/beach sand dune photographed as an abstract with deep shadow and strong highlight

By this definition, are you saying that photographers such as William Eggelston, Andreas Gursky, Richard Prince and even some selected works by Ansel Adams do not reproduce fine art photography because their photography is color?

[paulr]

Honestly I don't get why so many people think "artist" is pretentious.

I think it's because in a lot of people's minds, "artist" means "great artist." People say things like "he's such a great bread baker, he's a real artist" ... as if doing something brilliantly makes it art.

This seems odd to me. I happen to think making bread makes a person a bread baker ... making great bread doesn't make someone an artist any more than making great art makes someone a cowboy.

Making art (or trying to do so) makes you an artist. There's no pretense there, because you're not saying you're a great artist. It's a simple statement of vocation, or avocation, like plumber, poetry lover, race car driver, politician, runner, gardener, or hooker.

I've felt the same discomfort saying it too. I'm always a bit concerned that it will be taken the wrong way, as it I'm saying I'm a movie star or a diva. It's too bad, because for me at least, "artist" tells the story better than saying "photographer," or hiding behind my day job.

[tim atherton]

By this definition, are you saying that photographers such as William Eggelston, Andreas Gursky, Richard Prince and even some selected works by Ansel Adams do not reproduce fine art photography because their photography is color?

The terminology seems to be drifting (though it's inconsistent...) the above seem to be described more and more as art photography or just art - or art photographers or artists (or just photography - all the recent Jeff Wall hoopla, it seems to have been described as just plain art or photography in most of the commentary)

colour/b&w doesn't have much to do with it.

[Oren Grad]

I end up having to explain to people that I take landscape photographs and make prints which galleries sell.

Brian, that sounds very sensible - not anything you'd need to apologize for.

I earn a living through a motley mix of activities at the intersection of several very specialized fields (nothing related to photography or art, though). It's basically impossible to explain it even in three or four sentences to anybody who doesn't already know at least some of those fields well. Since there usually isn't time for or interest in a half-hour tutorial, most people who ask me the question end up walking away either not understanding at all, or thinking I do something that fits one of their existing conceptual categories but really isn't what I do at all. One gets used to it.

[Brian C. Miller]

I think it's because in a lot of people's minds, "artist" means "great artist." People say things like "he's such a great bread baker, he's a real artist" ... as if doing something brilliantly makes it art.

That's my view. Do something brilliantly, and you are an artist of that thing you do so well. I consider art to be a designation of excellence in an activity, like the art of dancing, the art of war, the art of painting, the art of making music, the art of photography. Art is the result of an excellent action. When the action ceases, so does the art.

If there is something physical left behind, that thing itself isn't art. A thing is just a thing, it is not an action.

When I see a photograph, I relate it to judging a dance by footprints left in the dance floor's dust. The photograph is not art, the art is the creation of the photograph. Perhaps this art is practiced with many players, like a symphony, or maybe just one, like a solo work.

What is left behind is the work of an artist, an artwork. It is the remnant of the art, and it is not the art itself. It is the artist who passes art to other artists, not the artwork. The artwork is lifeless, and devoid of art in itself. The artwork cannot perform the art, it can only receive the artful actions of an artist.

Fine art is the exercise that someone else performed that inspired you to pick up a camera and make photographs.

[Gary J. McCutcheon]

You guys crack me up, make me think, answer questions, and better yet, force me to ask more. This is a great place to be even if I can't respond to often. These questions and ponderings are the wonders that make this community click. Who cares if we agree or not.

[Brian C. Miller]

Those of you who make their profession selling art, how do you answer the question about what it is you do for a living? I'm really looking for a better answer.
Baxter Black (http://www.baxterblack.com/) coined the phrase, "self-unemployed."

[paul stimac]

Baxter Black (http://www.baxterblack.com/) coined the phrase, "self-unemployed."

man that guy's funny - I'm going to use that next time someone asks.