Clarification....Fine Art

[Sporgon]

Virtually all photography should be considered 'fine art' as it serves no purpose beyond being looked at for pleasure.

However one could argue that some photography such as identification photos- passport pictures for instance, are not fine art as their purpose is not for viewing pleasure, but a specific practical one.

 

[Hillsilly]

When you look through older magazine's espousing medium and large format film photography, just bear in mind that they were (and arguably still continues to be) the preferred medium for any photographer that wanted to print large and retain a lot of detail in their photograph (eg for gallery prints). Once you enlarge a 35mm film frame over 11x14 you tend to see more grain - something that many photographers wanted to avoid.

These days there is less justification for shooting film vs digital. Still...a good medium format camera and any large format camera will have an enlargement advantage over an everyday DSLR. But it is hard work to make a large chemically processed print. So when I see really big prints, to me, that alone is impressive.

Anyway - who decides what is fine art? Well...me. And you. And the girl next door. That bloke down the street. We all do.

More interestingly, of all of the artists out there producing fine art photographs, who decides who becomes famous, well paid, known etc? I don't know, but here is my 2c.

Fine art involves a little more than being in the right place at the right time and just happening to take a great photograph. To me fine art photography is undertaken by an artist with an idea, concept or objective that they are pursuing. The end goal could be as diverse as "I like how orange and blue interact" to "Only I can truly capture nature's beauty" to "I need to bring to the public's attention the impact of the great pacific garbage patch on ocean wildlife". They are passionate about something. And the long term measure of an artist is how well they can convey their message to the often unknowing or uncaring public.

And if fame is what you seek as a fine artist, look up any list of famous photographers. They almost all tend to be focused on a particular genre for extended periods of time. They are also tending to take photographs of interest to the general public at that time. Would Ansel Adams have been as famous if he wasn't taking extraordinary photos of national parks at a time when many people could afford cars and holidays? Would Robert Capa be such a household name if he wasn't one of the D-Day photographers? And Dorothy Lange's images touched a country reeling under the weight of the depression.

It has always been difficult to become a famous photographer. I suspect it is going to get tougher. Digital has really raised the bar for technical competency. Most "amateur" people on this forum are probably better technical photographers than many "pros" twenty years ago. But luckily for artists, technical competency doesn't replace passion, focus and drive (oh... and good marketing, contacts, connections, luck, access, large trust fund so that you don't need a real job...).

 

[Sporgon]

The confusion here is the inclusion of the word 'fine'. Nowadays people tend to interpret this as an adjective meaning 'very good', whereas the (compound) noun 'fine art' is used to define art that is not 'applied art'.

Therefore most photography is 'fine art' whether it be considered good or bad.

(Ooops ; seeing as we're discussing English I though I should amend my grammar ! )

 

[zim]

non-flippant reply: Actually I think to difference between a picture and fine art isn’t actually anything to do with the photograph but entirely to do with the quality of presentation.

 

[tron]

This will bring the same views as when CDs started to usurp the analogue 33 1/3 world. When you look at those multi million $ images ,esp the one of the girl in the dress as well the Rhine one ,it seems the answer is ....whoever will pay for it can call it what they want.

;D ;D ;D

 

[distant.star]

.
I don't know if it's improved my comprehension of the fine art concept, but this made for a great Sunday morning read. It's not every day I find cogent and erudite writing, especially on a topic like this. Notapro and Hillsilly, I really enjoy what you've said here.

Recently I've been exploring this more than ever before. A few months ago I walked into a "fine art" photo gallery in a fashionable (people living in the area can afford to buy what they're selling) neighborhood of Philadelphia. Three pictures got my attention.

Famous Alabama artist William Christenberry had a spot. Three of his pictures hung side-by-side as a single work. It was three pictures of a rural roadway corner taken years apart. Interesting to see the change in the landscape over time, but I don't get any great art message from it. If you ask me what human significance it had, I couldn't begin to even imagine. I did however, appreciate it as a depiction of time passing.

The next picture I don't recall the artist. It was a picture of a person holding a fish. I kept looking at it and thinking I'd love to have someone explain to me how this is art. But then, I think there must be people who look at Van Gogh's stuff and wonder the same thing. I'm content at this point to think this question is a beginning to acquisition of knowledge.

The third picture riveted me. I think the title is "Oranges," and it's by Jessica Todd Harper. Apparently, it's the anchor of her book, Interior Exposure, and it can be seen here:

http://www.jessicatoddharper.com/#s=0&mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&p=0&a=0&at=0

There's an almost frightening intimacy to that and other pictures in the book. If I tried for a hundred years I don't think I could ever create even one of those pictures. Also, they are technically perfect or near perfect as photography. She obviously knows what "image quality" means, but then she uses that as a foundation to go way beyond.

While I flippantly say fine art photography is anything created by someone with an MFA degree, I also know there are many people who know far more about this than I do. If they think a person holding a fish qualifies, it's up to me to ask why. And the question, of course, is the beginning.

I don't know if it's something I intuited myself years ago or whether I learned it somewhere, but for years I've comforted myself with the adage: The question IS the answer.

For myself in the world of photography, I don't know that I've yet come to know what the question actually is. So, I'll keep looking and asking until I find that question.