DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Fine Art Photography - Defined at last
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 32, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/08/2006 10:51:16 AM · #1
I have read many threads that discuss art and photography. Most will agree photography is art (well, not al lof it perhaps ;) - but to cross form art to fine art, well, what is fine art? What is a fine art photograph?

The other day it came to me, a better definition than the classic "I know it when i see it". To me, it is defined as images made for no reason other than I liked what I saw. Not for a client, not intended for an audience, not planned shots for a commercial purpose, not stock.


03/08/2006 11:14:34 AM · #2
Here is another definition:

"Art produced or intended primarily for beauty rather than utility."
 03/08/2006 11:40:26 AM · #3
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Here is another definition:

"Art produced or intended primarily for beauty rather than utility."


This does not fly at all, of course, if we define beauty as aptness to purpose.
 03/08/2006 11:53:01 AM · #4
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I have read many threads that discuss art and photography. Most will agree photography is art (well, not al lof it perhaps ;) - but to cross form art to fine art, well, what is fine art? What is a fine art photograph?

The other day it came to me, a better definition than the classic "I know it when i see it". To me, it is defined as images made for no reason other than I liked what I saw. Not for a client, not intended for an audience, not planned shots for a commercial purpose, not stock.


I think this definition falls short. It doesn't speak to the quality of the image in any way. I have plenty of un-planned, just-because-I-liked it shots that I would never consider "fine art".

Also, why wouldn't "fine art" be intended for an audience? Without a reader there is no book, without a viewer there is no photo.
 03/08/2006 11:57:45 AM · #5
"Fine Art Photography - Defined at last"

"To me, it is defined as images made for no reason other than I liked what I saw. Not for a client, not intended for an audience, not planned shots for a commercial purpose, not stock." Prof_Fate

.......................................................

You have explained what you think it is not - a process of elimination - but what happens when an image in one of your categories becomes acclaimed & accepted as fine art?
 03/08/2006 12:04:34 PM · #6
I am what my art is.

My art is what I am.

I am, it is, that's all.
 03/08/2006 12:11:34 PM · #7
i think it should be defined a bit more personally.

i mean... i like that it should not be a commisioned work. but then several of the paintings by da vinci are not fine art.

i think what you are trying to get at is. art has a free spirit to just evolve into itself something more than just a good pic, or a great photograph.

personally

a fine art photo would be defined as a photograph that allows veiwers to inbibe their own emotions to it and allows the viewers to receive a bit of the artists emotions back from it.

not that i am correct though.
 03/08/2006 12:34:37 PM · #8
I think to make a distinction between art and fine art is wrongheaded. It is brought to you by people who go to opera because they want to be cultured, instead of just to enjoy it. A good photograph is art. A photograph that is not art is cold, meaningless, but might make you a couple bucks. That's fine. I spend 40 hours a week doing cold, meaningless stuff for a few bucks. If you can make art AND money, God bless you.
 03/08/2006 12:41:18 PM · #9
Originally posted by KaDi:
Also, why wouldn't "fine art" be intended for an audience? Without a reader there is no book, without a viewer there is no photo.


But even this is too narrow. Can you not look at a tree and call it high art? Before you say no, what about the poem by Joyce Kilmer?
I think that I shall never see
A poem lovely as a tree
A tree whose hungry mouth is prest
Against the earth's sweet flowing breast;
A tree that looks at God all day,
And lifts her leafy arms to pray;
A tree that may in Summer wear
A nest of robins in her hair;
Upon whose bosom snow has lain;
Who intimately lives with rain.
Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tree.

But then is the tree a thing of beauty if it lives alone in a forest and is never seen or appreciated by mankind?

And what of Shakespeare, considered a master if fine leterature? But in his day his plays were a favorite of the common people. His stories are sometimes base and rude. And he clearly "borrowed" stories from his contemporaries.

Many people consider the Bible a work of art and high literature, but there are those who find it offensive and are loathe to call it art.

Personally, when I see a crucifix in a jar of urine, I am deeply offended. But the National Endowment for the Arts considers it poignant artistic expression.

Bottom line, if you manage to "define" art to the point that you can say this is it; no more to define, then you have diminished it.
Define it any way you want.
And I'll do the same.
 03/08/2006 12:52:11 PM · #10
Originally posted by thomaspeople:
Originally posted by KaDi:
Also, why wouldn't "fine art" be intended for an audience? Without a reader there is no book, without a viewer there is no photo.


But even this is too narrow.


I wasn't attempting a definition. I was trying to point out that using "not intended for an audience" as part of a definition of art (or literature) is flawed in its thinking.
 03/08/2006 01:05:57 PM · #11
Sounds a lot like "fine dining" to me. Strikes me as a marketing term struggling for acceptance to a broader audience.
 03/08/2006 01:10:58 PM · #12
Here are a few other definitions to consider: "Fine Art"
 03/08/2006 01:48:14 PM · #13
We cannot define art because we cannot define a stone even, or a piece of wood. We cannot define what we have found and we cannot define who we are and there are many things we cannot do.

We can try and we can give up and look at whatever comes our way and what we do with it depends on who we are. And who are we if not flesh and blood dressed in funny clothes and a hat forever coming and going scattering the earth with fists full of contradictions.

And life moves in such paradoxical ways the only certainty that exists is that it is so and not otherwise yet or always.

Some of us can recognize art when it hits us and some of us cannot recognize art when it hits us on the head. When our heads have been hit often enough we realize that it wasn't art that did most of the damage. When we begin to grasp what it is that keeps hitting on us the first thing we want to acknowledge is our pain, grief and suffering which is equal to the amount of love and profound joy we are capable of feeling.

There comes a time when we can make art and we can make love and we can conceive art the way we conceive a new life because we have had sufficient experience to reconstruct that experience without forever lamenting our miserable existence.
 03/08/2006 02:03:06 PM · #14
Call it what ever you want, it still doesn't meet the challenge.
 03/08/2006 02:06:34 PM · #15
It's not worth worrying about, it only becomes "fine art" after you are dead.
 03/08/2006 02:50:30 PM · #16
Whenever you say "that's not art" or not "fine art" all you succeed in doing is pissing people off. Often times its easier to use examples. Folk craft scarecrows that you hang on your door at thanksgiving time are most certainly not fine art... we agree, no? Utilitarian things such as architecture or chair design is not fine art, I suppose by definition. In that same sense, perhaps, photojournalism may be art but
it might need that special something... in Japanese the concept is "yugen," perhaps "duende" in spanish culture?

I like Zeuszen's statement that you know it when you see it, and some people don't. (to paraphrase) Since this appreciation of art , or lack thereof, is well nigh impossible to explain let alone teach, I would say that we shouldn't spend our time arguing over what is art or not but rather disagree or explore the reasons why we like certain "artistic works."

I don't think enough time is spent looking at photos for the sake of the photos here; we are so concerned with a lens choice or camera. Thats like artists sitting around talking about brushes and canvas.
 03/08/2006 02:59:49 PM · #17
Wendell Castle is best known as a leading member of the Studio Furniture movement in mid-twentieth century America. In 1959, exasperated by the unwillingness of the art world establishment to recognize his furniture as art and not just fine craftsmanship, he entered what looked like an abstract wood sculpture in a juried show. Once the judges had accepted and exhibited his entry, he let it be known that it was actually a stool and gave it the title Stool Sculpture. So far as he was concerned, if the establishment experts could not tell the difference between a sculpture and a stool, then there was no difference.

Arthur Danto discusses this case in Beyond the Brillo Box (1992, Farrar Straus Giroux, pp. 34-36). He points out that Castle's "proof" would have been more convincing had his stool looked more like an ordinary stool and less like a typical abstract sculpture, and that of course the judges would then have refused to accept it. The point is well taken. but times have changed since 1959. Now Castle's studio furniture rubs shoulders with abstract expressionism in major museum collections. The Philadelphia Art Museum, for example, exhibits one of his works in its modern wing, next to classic modern paintings; and there's a "design" room nearby where one may also find especially striking teapots, motorcycle helmets, and other commonplace items.

So, is the distinction between fine art and craft a completely bogus one? Was there ever any good reason for making it in the first place? Here are some possible reasons for making the distinction. 1) Fine Art is art for art's sake. It is made to be viewed or experienced on its own, rather than serving some other purpose (e.g., providing seating, decorating tablecloths, or selling cars). 2) Fine Art is meant to communicate something, or it is the communication. By contrast, comercial art, craft and graphic design assist in the communication of somebody else's message.

Something else to think about: Fine Art, in the modern sense, hardly existed before the Renaissance, or even later. Prior to that time, painting, sculpture, drama, music, dance, and all the other arts were embedded in other social practices (church services, court activities, weddings, funerals, public celebrations, and the like). There were no museums or concert halls, nor were there any art critics in the modern sense. Artists were often anonymous. They made their "statements" in the process of making a commission, playing for a dance, decorating a cathedral. The division between fine art and craft, like that between fine and popular art, is a relatively recent one. Does it represent progress? Decay? Just another possible social arrangement?

From //www.rowan.edu/philosop/clowney/Aesthetics/Castle.htm
 03/08/2006 03:20:15 PM · #18
Funny, I thought it was just a good pic taken by Mr Roflmao :-)
 03/08/2006 03:22:28 PM · #19
Originally posted by Leok:
Funny, I thought it was just a good pic taken by Mr Roflmao :-)


Oh, that's SO backwards :-) The man is ROFLMAO at "art"...

jejeje�

R.
 03/08/2006 03:28:17 PM · #20
an anecdotal exception to the rule I am afraid. perhaps those that could recognize fine art knew it all along; doesn't make a sock puppet at a craft fair fine art.

I am sure that in yesteryear there were blacksmith's that were just hacks, and those who it really well, well they were artisans. THey were not "fine artists" because swordmaking is not a fine art category. Not that people that make swords are not every bit as artistic or talented, but there is tradition to life and culture, and blacksmithery is craft and such, but not fine art;although museums are now filled with armor and swords and such. And there can be fine art painted onto these things, I guess, as well. Sculpture is different, perhaps a more utilitarian fine art, but still, iron sculpture is different than sword making.

Is rock and roll fine art? (and there is some damn good rock and roll) is it of the same level as beethoven, mozart, bach, opera? etc?

No? then why would you think that your picture of a tea cup in your backyard is? your disgarded snapshots or bubble dripping shots? fine art? lets get serious.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Wendell Castle is best known as a leading member of the Studio Furniture movement in mid-twentieth century America. In 1959, exasperated by the unwillingness of the art world establishment to recognize his furniture as art and not just fine craftsmanship, he entered what looked like an abstract wood sculpture in a juried show. Once the judges had accepted and exhibited his entry, he let it be known that it was actually a stool and gave it the title Stool Sculpture. So far as he was concerned, if the establishment experts could not tell the difference between a sculpture and a stool, then there was no difference.

Arthur Danto discusses this case in Beyond the Brillo Box (1992, Farrar Straus Giroux, pp. 34-36). He points out that Castle's "proof" would have been more convincing had his stool looked more like an ordinary stool and less like a typical abstract sculpture, and that of course the judges would then have refused to accept it. The point is well taken. but times have changed since 1959. Now Castle's studio furniture rubs shoulders with abstract expressionism in major museum collections. The Philadelphia Art Museum, for example, exhibits one of his works in its modern wing, next to classic modern paintings; and there's a "design" room nearby where one may also find especially striking teapots, motorcycle helmets, and other commonplace items.

So, is the distinction between fine art and craft a completely bogus one? Was there ever any good reason for making it in the first place? Here are some possible reasons for making the distinction. 1) Fine Art is art for art's sake. It is made to be viewed or experienced on its own, rather than serving some other purpose (e.g., providing seating, decorating tablecloths, or selling cars). 2) Fine Art is meant to communicate something, or it is the communication. By contrast, comercial art, craft and graphic design assist in the communication of somebody else's message.

Something else to think about: Fine Art, in the modern sense, hardly existed before the Renaissance, or even later. Prior to that time, painting, sculpture, drama, music, dance, and all the other arts were embedded in other social practices (church services, court activities, weddings, funerals, public celebrations, and the like). There were no museums or concert halls, nor were there any art critics in the modern sense. Artists were often anonymous. They made their "statements" in the process of making a commission, playing for a dance, decorating a cathedral. The division between fine art and craft, like that between fine and popular art, is a relatively recent one. Does it represent progress? Decay? Just another possible social arrangement?

From //www.rowan.edu/philosop/clowney/Aesthetics/Castle.htm
03/08/2006 03:36:01 PM · #21
Originally posted by blindjustice:
an anecdotal exception to the rule I am afraid. perhaps those that could recognize fine art knew it all along; doesn't make a sock puppet at a craft fair fine art.

I am sure that in yesteryear there were blacksmith's that were just hacks, and those who it really well, well they were artisans. THey were not "fine artists" because swordmaking is not a fine art category. Not that people that make swords are not every bit as artistic or talented, but there is tradition to life and culture, and blacksmithery is craft and such, but not fine art;although museums are now filled with armor and swords and such. And there can be fine art painted onto these things, I guess, as well. Sculpture is different, perhaps a more utilitarian fine art, but still, iron sculpture is different than sword making.

Is rock and roll fine art? (and there is some damn good rock and roll) is it of the same level as beethoven, mozart, bach, opera? etc?

No? then why would you think that your picture of a tea cup in your backyard is? your disgarded snapshots or bubble dripping shots? fine art? lets get serious.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Wendell Castle is best known as a leading member of the Studio Furniture movement in mid-twentieth century America. In 1959, exasperated by the unwillingness of the art world establishment to recognize his furniture as art and not just fine craftsmanship, he entered what looked like an abstract wood sculpture in a juried show. Once the judges had accepted and exhibited his entry, he let it be known that it was actually a stool and gave it the title Stool Sculpture. So far as he was concerned, if the establishment experts could not tell the difference between a sculpture and a stool, then there was no difference.

Arthur Danto discusses this case in Beyond the Brillo Box (1992, Farrar Straus Giroux, pp. 34-36). He points out that Castle's "proof" would have been more convincing had his stool looked more like an ordinary stool and less like a typical abstract sculpture, and that of course the judges would then have refused to accept it. The point is well taken. but times have changed since 1959. Now Castle's studio furniture rubs shoulders with abstract expressionism in major museum collections. The Philadelphia Art Museum, for example, exhibits one of his works in its modern wing, next to classic modern paintings; and there's a "design" room nearby where one may also find especially striking teapots, motorcycle helmets, and other commonplace items.

So, is the distinction between fine art and craft a completely bogus one? Was there ever any good reason for making it in the first place? Here are some possible reasons for making the distinction. 1) Fine Art is art for art's sake. It is made to be viewed or experienced on its own, rather than serving some other purpose (e.g., providing seating, decorating tablecloths, or selling cars). 2) Fine Art is meant to communicate something, or it is the communication. By contrast, comercial art, craft and graphic design assist in the communication of somebody else's message.

Something else to think about: Fine Art, in the modern sense, hardly existed before the Renaissance, or even later. Prior to that time, painting, sculpture, drama, music, dance, and all the other arts were embedded in other social practices (church services, court activities, weddings, funerals, public celebrations, and the like). There were no museums or concert halls, nor were there any art critics in the modern sense. Artists were often anonymous. They made their "statements" in the process of making a commission, playing for a dance, decorating a cathedral. The division between fine art and craft, like that between fine and popular art, is a relatively recent one. Does it represent progress? Decay? Just another possible social arrangement?

From //www.rowan.edu/philosop/clowney/Aesthetics/Castle.htm


Personally, I don't make the distinction between craft, art, and fine art. Especially not the latter two. The subject just got me googling and I found the quoted paragraphs interesting in context.

R.
 03/08/2006 03:37:26 PM · #22
Originally posted by blindjustice:
I am sure that in yesteryear there were blacksmith's that were just hacks, and those who it really well, well they were artisans. THey were not "fine artists" because swordmaking is not a fine art category. Not that people that make swords are not every bit as artistic or talented, but there is tradition to life and culture, and blacksmithery is craft and such, but not fine art;although museums are now filled with armor and swords and such. And there can be fine art painted onto these things, I guess, as well. Sculpture is different, perhaps a more utilitarian fine art, but still, iron sculpture is different than sword making.


Such distinctions are worthless. They are worse than that because they privilege certain undertakings above others. The history that Bear Music quotes demonstrates how the Romantic tradition changed the way people think about art. But art has been here all along, whether performed by swordmakers or painters, whether by a bizarre original or a master of a tradition. There are no objective criteria to tell you what is art and what is not. Life just isn't that easy. Find the right side of your brain, people! It's in there somewhere!
 03/08/2006 03:37:56 PM · #23
why would you even want to try to tackle this subject and what good does it do?

just take photographs for the love of it and call it and categorize them how you see fit, people will generally get your drift.
 03/08/2006 04:05:23 PM · #24
Originally posted by petrakka:
why would you even want to try to tackle this subject and what good does it do?

just take photographs for the love of it and call it and categorize them how you see fit, people will generally get your drift.


*nod*
 03/08/2006 04:38:39 PM · #25
Originally posted by blindjustice:

Is rock and roll fine art? (and there is some damn good rock and roll) is it of the same level as beethoven, mozart, bach, opera? etc?

No? then why would you think that your picture of a tea cup in your backyard is? your disgarded snapshots or bubble dripping shots? fine art? lets get serious.


Granted, sort of. But fine art simply cannot be tied down this way. Is rock and roll fine art? Who's to say? Do you allow all rock and roll into the discussion? Consider Emerson Lake and Palmer (ELP), ACDC, Yes, Van Halen, Chicago, Lynyrd Skynyrd...
ELP has "classically" trained musicians working their art with electronic media instead of concert hall restricted instruments. Rick Wakeman is arguably one of the greatest keyboard artists of this century. And don't forget Walter (Wendy after the sex change) Carlos who pioneered the moog synthesizer and gave us "Switched on Bach" along with other original pieces that rival (in many opinions) the standards of past centuries.
John Milton (Paradise Lost) is considered a literary master of 17th century England. But Jim Morrison is a published American poet from the twentieth century.

We tend to call anything contemporary common and give it "art" status only after a few centuries have passed.
Martin Luthor penned a number of hymns and sung them to the melodies of bar tunes from his day. High church music was once limited to simple melodies and chants with no harmony until after Pope Gregory. Four part harmony was considered seductive and satanic, not to be allowed in the church.

I have to go back to my original post as well as agree with others who have posted here - Art is not to be defined. It is to be appreciated.

Oh, and to add a little religion, just for fun, Jesus said in Luke, chapter 12, verse 27:
"Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these."
(Of course, who's going to critique the creator...)

Message edited by author 2006-03-08 16:43:57.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 11:11:45 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 11:11:45 PM EDT.