| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/08/2006 04:40:42 PM · #26 |
This thread is interesting to me mainly because of it's timing. I received my current issue of "LensWork" magazine in the mail yesterday. The Editor's Comments in this issue start out with the following paragraph:
In conversation with some friends a while back, someone asked, "If you were going to demonstrate to a non-photographer the nature of fine art photography and why you are so passionate about it, which ten photographs would you show them?" Wow. That is an interesting question!
Brooks Jensen goes on to do just this. He supplied some photographs that he would include and listed WHY. For the sake of DPChallenge and this thread, I will attempt to do this here using photos from DPChallenge and not go outside to find them. I am just going to choose three for the sake of time. These are in no specific order...
#1 - Speedo - skiprow
I think this is one of the most compelling character portraits I have seen in a long time. This photograph transcends 'portrait' on so many levels. Even though the image was created as a character portrait, for me, it moved beyond that. The composition and the transformation to black and white really don't make me think about who I'm looking at as much as each individual component of the image and how they work together to become what they represent. The bubbles, the bathing suit, the goggles, the skin tones, and the water each have specific roles in the composition.
#2 - The Innocence of Youth - macpapas
Here is a piece of fine art that manifested itself while the photographer was probably shooting some simple snapshots of the kids playing. The snapshot barrier is broken here because there is indeed a pure and visible capture of innocence captured for everyone to see. The viewer doesn't have to look for it because it jumps out and slaps us in the face. Once again, 'transcendence' has happened. I don't wanna wear that word out, but it's an important element of 'fine art' in my eyes.
#3 - The Cat - suemack
This photo grabs me the same way macpapas' Innocence of Youth did. There is a deep sense of companionship radiating from this photograph.
In a nutshell, I am able to 'connect' with these images on some level beyond the actual subject that I can see. They make me feel something on an emotional level.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2006 04:53:18 PM · #27 |
"fine art" to me means very little, other than a term photographers use to increase the asking price of their photos. Some "fine art" photos are just that....excellent works of art that nearly anyone looking at them can appreciate.
However, I have little respect for a photographer that takes a black and white picture of a road-sign, slaps a $1,000 price tag onto an 8x10 and sells it as "fine art". |
|
|
|
03/08/2006 04:57:01 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by rscorp:
"fine art" to me means very little, other than a term photographers use to increase the asking price of their photos. Some "fine art" photos are just that....excellent works of art that nearly anyone looking at them can appreciate.
However, I have little respect for a photographer that takes a black and white picture of a road-sign, slaps a $1,000 price tag onto an 8x10 and sells it as "fine art". |
The classification of a photograph (fine art or not) doesn't determine it's value. Photographers often price their work high like the value you mentioned. It doesn't mean it's worth that though. It's only worth what someone would pay for it.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2006 04:57:12 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by rscorp:
However, I have little respect for a photographer that takes a black and white picture of a road-sign, slaps a $1,000 price tag onto an 8x10 and sells it as "fine art". |
Merely for adopting PT Barnum as their muse? |
|
|
|
03/08/2006 04:59:54 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by rscorp:
"fine art" to me means very little, other than a term photographers use to increase the asking price of their photos. Some "fine art" photos are just that....excellent works of art that nearly anyone looking at them can appreciate.
However, I have little respect for a photographer that takes a black and white picture of a road-sign, slaps a $1,000 price tag onto an 8x10 and sells it as "fine art". |
The classification of a photograph (fine art or not) doesn't determine it's value. Photographers often price their work high like the value you mentioned. It doesn't mean it's worth that though. It's only worth what someone would pay for it. |
I know, I'm just saying that the term "fine art" is used by photographers as a way of making the public think that their work is more valuable than it really is. |
|
|
|
03/08/2006 05:06:15 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by rscorp:
However, I have little respect for a photographer that takes a black and white picture of a road-sign, slaps a $1,000 price tag onto an 8x10 and sells it as "fine art". |
Hell, I'd have a bunch of respect for him, if he could tell me how he does it :-)
|
|
|
|
03/08/2006 05:07:15 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by rscorp:
However, I have little respect for a photographer that takes a black and white picture of a road-sign, slaps a $1,000 price tag onto an 8x10 and sells it as "fine art". |
Hell, I'd have a bunch of respect for him, if he could tell me how he does it :-) |
Tru Dat! |
|
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: 08/29/2025 04:58:44 AM EDT.
