| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/01/2003 07:12:12 PM · #1 |
What is Fine Art Photography and is there any of it on this site? Please provide links to photos if you think there are any availabe on dpchallenge.... Also, if possible, tell why it's fine art... :)
Message edited by author 2003-05-01 19:12:48.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2003 07:50:15 PM · #2 |
Ya know, I've been wondering the same thing since I noticed it was a gallery category over at Photosig. It seems to me like Fine Art Photography is just photography by people who think they're better than everyone else. =) I suppose if you really wanted to attempt to define it you could claim that it is photography that relies on more than pure visual appeal (i.e. flashy colors or cool patterns), but instead is focused on capturing the "essence" of things, or portraying emotion.
Perhaps what I'm saying is that fine art photography is a means of communication, while "normal" photography is a means of producing cool images.
I think I'll look for some images to try to present what I'm saying a bit better.
But if you really ask me, there's really no line between fine art photography and other photography.. everything in photography, just like everything else in life, occurs in broad spectrums.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2003 08:07:00 PM · #3 |
hmmm, when i think of fine art, i generally think of black and white, starker compositioned shots. (not always B&W of course.) um, photos that express some sort of emotion----oooh!! ive got one in mind!
untouched
this shot kind of goes along with what my idea of fine art photography is...i guess because it has that stark composition/emotive quality about it. i could be wrong tho, ive never actually thought about it that much until now! :)
edit--
wow, i dont know now. i just looked thru my favs and there are at least 10-15 pics in there i could have listed that could fall under what *my* idea of what fine art photography is. maybe i have too broad a definition? or maybe wingy is right and you really cant define it! sigh, i think i know less now than i did before i started this post.
Message edited by author 2003-05-01 20:17:32.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2003 08:17:59 PM · #4 |
Ya know.. as I look for examples of what I would consider fine art photography, I'm mostly just realizing that my own personal preferences seem to dictate what I consider to be fine art. Here are a few examples anyway:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=3254
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=18228
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=13056
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=10378
I have a definate black and white bias on this.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2003 08:19:48 PM · #5 |
Much as I don't want to disparage wingy's choices they just make it clear to me that it's probably indefinable as I don't see any of those as "Fine Art".
I'd be interested to know if there is a "dictionary" definition of it or whether it's just a consensus thing?
|
|
|
|
05/01/2003 08:20:29 PM · #6 |
PS Nothing wrong with those images, all fine and dandy. Just not my idea of Fine Art but still my idea of good photography.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2003 08:22:26 PM · #7 |
The difference between "fine art photography" and just "photography" is the same difference between "fine art" and "art": one is FINE.
Message edited by author 2003-05-01 20:25:17.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2003 08:24:22 PM · #8 |
well, i guess i do agree with wingy--cause all of those fit my idea of fine art and one of them was even on my (mental) list! ill post more of what i think good examples are from my favs after i eat. :)
|
|
|
|
05/01/2003 08:27:14 PM · #9 |
Actually, I'm guessing here, but there is Fine Art Photography, Journalistic photography, Candid photography, Archival photography, and probably others, and they all overlap, sometimes considerably. So I would imagine that Fine Art Photography is photography in which the photographer tries to make an artistic communication (as opposed to making a record of an object or event, or simply taking a picture). Best guess!
To continue, take singing. We all can hum a tune or sing in the shower, but some take it further and become opera singers. Or drawing: we can all draw stick figures, but some artists turn out Mona Lisas. But I could be speaking of the differences between art and Great art. Hmmm...
I'm a bit verbose about this because I teach classes in which this very issue is discussed, and I never really come to any conclusions, and I am always amused by my students' reactions that I don't.
Message edited by author 2003-05-01 20:32:00.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2003 08:32:36 PM · #10 |
The fine arts use the human figure as their subject (although this is a difficult rationale when applied to architecture); they can convey ideas or moral values; they are interpreted or discussed in theoretical writings; and they can be appreciated for their own sake, without regard to their usefulness. The idea of fine arts traces back to the French Academy of Fine Arts of the 17th century, however, and since then artists have on many occasions actively worked to tear down this division.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2003 10:56:08 PM · #11 |
| As soon as "fine art" has been defined by an institution or collective of people it has died and become cliche. Fine art is always on the fringe of what is acceptable as a means of expression. It's power lies in it's ability to reshape the way powerful emotion can be conveyed. Picasso shattering the picture plane to create Cubism, against all of his contemporaries wishes. He took his artform into his own hands, and created his own idea of what it could be, this is fine art. |
|
|
|
05/01/2003 11:22:31 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Much as I don't want to disparage wingy's choices they just make it clear to me that it's probably indefinable as I don't see any of those as "Fine Art". |
That's quite alright, in the process of trying to make those choices I pretty much came to the same conclusion.
Message edited by author 2003-05-02 00:20:08.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2003 12:18:20 AM · #13 |
Usually it's the difference between a photographer and an artist :)
One take photos, the other creates art through photos.
But Fine Arts these days are also commercialized quite a lot, and once an artist starts to want to sell his/her stuff, he has to compromise somewhere, and thus renders his stuff less likely to be his own expression. It's a like pro photographer -- he is only interested in creating something that others would buy, so he's not really a true "artist", though i am sure lots of them sell so called "Fine Art" prints because if you call it "Fine Art", you can sell for more :) If no one buys, he starves, and he doesn't like to starve so a pro only creates photos that he can SELL, an artist wouldn't care. But like I said, Fine Arts these days aren't really true arts anymore, as most Fine Arts prints are designed to sell, so they cater to their specific audience.
Think of it this way -- the difference between a Playboy photog and a "nude" photog is that the Playboy photog's product SELLS, the nude photog's might not. The Playboy photog creates his photograph for the specific reason to SELL -- i.e. to arouse the viewer sexually, a "nude" "photog/artist" doesn't care if his photos sell or not, he may has the same intention of the PLayboy photog to arouse, but he doesn't care if it doesn't sell.
In other words, it's hard to be an artist when your balls are tied to money, and i haven't seen any "Fine Art" prints out there these days that aren't tied to commercialism one way or the other. Hence, they really shouldn't be called Fine Art, they should just be called "The Prints that YOu will have to Pay MORE to buy". |
|
|
|
05/02/2003 12:35:38 AM · #14 |
True.. but higher prices means less prints sold, which means less of a need for mass appeal. It allows (although does not assure) for more artistic, more risk taking styles. However, it is still tied to profit, so what you say is still essentially true... but it doesn't necessarily mean that a nude photog who sells prints will churn out similar work to playboy.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2003 12:56:53 AM · #15 |
I thought the difference was, to call your work "Fine Art" you had to spend a ton of money at an art school to get a degree in "Fine Art". ;)
edit: Speaking of Playboy. I heard on the radio the other night. They take 7-8 days to shoot a Playmate centerfold. To me that seems a little much, unless that time is including lab work, [cough]PS airbrushing[/cough]. I mean yeah, I'm sure they're going for that "perfect shot", but I would think they would already have a pretty good idea of what and how it's going to work.
Message edited by author 2003-05-02 01:02:27. |
|
|
|
05/02/2003 12:58:48 AM · #16 |
|
|
|
05/02/2003 01:11:19 AM · #17 |
Hmm, a most interesting discussion.
It's all rather subjective, I think.
Using "fine art" as a definition to denote something greater than, or somehow different from "regular art" is, in my mind anyway, rather pointless. I don't feel we really need to make such a distiction, but I can respect that some folks feel we do.
Art is art. If you want to draw a line in the sand and set aside an area for "finer art," that's ok... Just don't expect everyone to agree with your choices : )
Now, that said, I feel that photography as a medium for artistic expression is rather new. And it wasn't too terribly long ago that photographers were not considered artists at all. (Indeed, I'm sure a number of people still feel this way.) I really have no idea of where or when the term "Fine Art" came into use, or which medium(s) it was intended to define, but I wonder if it didn't come about as a result of photographers attempting to gain some recognition for their work. (Given their often less than respected choice of artistic expression.) Perhaps they felt that if enough people referred to their work as "Fine Art," it would serve to validate them on some level.
Just a thought.
(BTW, all my better stuff is "Fine Art," and all my other stuff is just crap I should never have posted here : ) |
|
|
|
05/02/2003 01:37:00 AM · #18 |
| It seems to me that most of the "photographers" on this sight have been inspired by studio commercialism, and the goal is to emulate what they see in magazines. The fact that everyone wants to define "fine art" is quite typical of a commercial pursuit. Define it, copy it, mass produce it, destroy any spontaneity that it once may have had. A true fine artist tries to test the boundaries of the medium to keep it fresh and original. |
|
|
|
05/02/2003 02:17:56 AM · #19 |
The... arguments against photography ever being considered a fine art are: the element of chance which enters in, finding things ready-made for a machine to record, and of course the mechanics of the medium... I say that chance enters into all branches of art: a chance word or phrase starts a new trend of thought in a writer, a chance sound may bring a new melody to a musician, a chance combination of lines, new composition to a painter... Chance – in reality is not chance – but being ready, attuned to one's surroundings – and grasp (the) opportunity.... – Edward Weston, Daybook II
Writing is not about words. Painting is not about pigment. Music is not about tones. As long as photographers insist that photography is about photographs, the art is limited and self-containing! - Brook Jensen, LWQ, no.18, p.56
and from two photographers who most would consider to be 'Fine Art' artists:
"It takes a lot of imagination to be a good photographer. You need less imagination to be a painter, because you can invent things. But in photography everything is so ordinary; it takes a lot of looking before you learn to see the ordinary." - David Bailey
"When I have had such men before my camera my whole soul has endeavored to do its duty to them in recording faithfully the greatness of the inner as well as the features of the outer man. The photograph thus taken has almost the embodiment of a prayer." - Julia Margaret Cameron
IMHO a number of DPC members are creating Fine Art. For instance:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=12118
//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/60/11363.jpg
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=15813
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=10009
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=19283
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=17432
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=15761
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=17886 |
|
|
|
05/02/2003 05:44:37 AM · #20 |
According to the 'Encarta® World English Dictionary' :
fine art (plural fine arts)
noun
1. (arts) creation of beautiful objects: artistic work that is meant to be appreciated for its own sake, rather than to serve some useful function
2. (education) college course in art: a course of study designed to teach students practical artistic skills as well as the theory and history of art
3. (arts) pure art: any art form, for example, painting, sculpture, architecture, drawing, or engraving, that is considered to have purely aesthetic value ( often used in the plural )
4. impressively detailed technique: something that requires great skill, talent, or precision ( informal ) the fine art of public speaking
...or whatever your perception tells you ;o)
Greetings, Marco
|
|
|
|
05/02/2003 06:21:45 AM · #21 |
John, I don't know if there's any on this site, but there sure is some here:
Frank Meadow Sutcliffe gallery
If any of you don't know this guys work, check it out this instant - and buy one of tthe books (or preferably all of them). FMS was an absolute genius, IMO perhaps the best phtographer that has ever lived.
And of course, Frederick H Evans, who is also not as well known as he should be. There are some of his photos here, if this link has worked properly. Scroll down to the Lincoln cathedral shot.
ed
Message edited by author 2003-05-02 06:22:50.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2003 06:44:18 AM · #22 |
To me it seems that what one considers to be Fine Art depends entirely on taste.
The images one happens to love most, to think most highly of, are what one considers to be Fine Art.
Perhaps Fine Art is simply a piece of art that gives pleasure to the viewer - and exists just to do that - to communicate and create a link between artist and audience.
So, given that we each have a different inner language, we each find different images are the ones that communicate to us best, we probably each have our own mental collection of fine art.
Looking only at DPC stuff, my "fine art" images include:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=7683
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=654
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=1912
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=5549
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=6536
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=17363
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=4519
Message edited by author 2003-05-02 06:47:10.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2003 07:40:32 AM · #23 |
This is fine art to me!! LOL!! ok ok just kidding. I just had to. :o)
Art is art. Call it "fine" or "unrefined" is all the same to me... and I'm a painter and some might consider my work "fine" and others not. It's like "fine" cuisine.... what makes it that? Less food on your plate but it looks nice? Hmmmmm... ;-)
Message edited by author 2003-05-02 09:18:02.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2003 08:05:12 AM · #24 |
There are some interesting ideas in this thread... I was chatting with Kavey some this morning and here's a clip from that chat...
*************
[ DPC Fanatics: >>> KV*BlueberryPie tumbles into DPC Fanatics head over heels. ]
KV*BlueberryPie: What you doing in here all alone?
KV*BlueberryPie: :D
Setzler: hi kv
KV*BlueberryPie: Or did you just leave yourself logged in waiting for someone to come join you?
KV*BlueberryPie: Hi John
KV*BlueberryPie: Wassup?
Setzler: i was just reading thru the responses to the 'fine art' thread i posted last nite
KV*BlueberryPie: Aaah
KV*BlueberryPie: :D
KV*BlueberryPie: Interesting one
KV*BlueberryPie: :D
KV*BlueberryPie: I think I'm with the school that it's not really something with a clear delineation...
Setzler: i suppose it was actually a silly question that i already knew the answer to
KV*BlueberryPie: just like fine cuisine, as someone pointed out
KV*BlueberryPie: no
KV*BlueberryPie: well it provoked thought so
KV*BlueberryPie: not silly
Setzler: gordon and I were discussing it here yesterday
KV*BlueberryPie: but then i think kebabs (gyros) are fine cuisine at the right time so...
KV*BlueberryPie: :D
KV*BlueberryPie: what did you both come up with
Setzler: we wondered why we didn't consider any of the challenge winners here to be 'fine art'
KV*BlueberryPie: ah
KV*BlueberryPie: it depends
KV*BlueberryPie: if that godawful pic by sam taylor something is fine art whereas the rest isnt. i'm not an advocate. i think there can be messages in an image without that pretentious crap
KV*BlueberryPie: (and i did see a full size print of it in the national portrait gallery)
KV*BlueberryPie: but if fine art is an image or artwork that communicates, is a message from the artists, reaches the audience (as intended or otherwise) then
Setzler: there is one element of my idea of fine art that hasn't come up in that thread
KV*BlueberryPie: it#s fine art to me
KV*BlueberryPie: yes?
KV*BlueberryPie: whats htat?
KV*BlueberryPie: i#ve often found images u
Setzler: everything that I see that i consider to be 'fine art' usually has some rather small abstract element or quality to it
Setzler: not largely abstract though
KV*BlueberryPie: taken for commercial purposes reaches me in a way much more abstract than the intent and that it reaches me as art first advert second
Setzler: when i look at the examples people have posted, i see this same abstract
KV*BlueberryPie: sometimes i think we're all far too desperate to categorise, to draw lines between and say this is commercial, this is amateur, this is fine, this is traditional etc
Setzler: yup
KV*BlueberryPie: I would say that I find few snapshot or snapshot STYLE images fit my own definition of fine art
Setzler: there is also another common thread in the 'fine art' definition
KV*BlueberryPie: indigo's body sledding fits in well with your definition
KV*BlueberryPie: there's an element of abstract
KV*BlueberryPie: of the absurd perhaps
Setzler: it seems that a lot of people look for black and white
KV*BlueberryPie: it's not abstract in that it's unrecognisable
KV*BlueberryPie: but it has an addedquirk
Setzler: which, in itself, is somewhat abstract
Setzler: black and white changes the photo completely
KV*BlueberryPie: i dont look for BW, just happen to like some BW images more in a fine art way because the BW treatment draws out the abstract more than colour sometimes - it plays on light and shadow and on contrast, on the FORMS, not just the content
KV*BlueberryPie: you know?
Setzler: removing the visual stimulus of color forces the shapes, patterns, and textures to the forefront where they could be lost otherwise
KV*BlueberryPie: exactl
Setzler: :)
KV*BlueberryPie: but then I see colour images which can fit too. Which are also about contrast, form, shape, light and shadow...
Setzler: yes... like the door you posted
KV*BlueberryPie: Hmmm - we should cut and paste THIS intot hat thread :D
**********
Anyone have any thoughts on why this 'slightly abstract' element is playing a role in what is fine art?
|
|
|
|
05/02/2003 08:41:49 AM · #25 |
Anyone have any thoughts on why this 'slightly abstract' element is playing a role in what is fine art?
I think thats because abstracts and abstract elements dont really serve any type of visual documentation ( like a tradional photo of a subject ) other than to stimulate your senses. So when we see abstracts, most are shapes, and forms that may not look like a traditional picture. I think thats what invokes in mind that the picture was geared towards a creative non conforming type of photograph. I think fine art pictures are not ment to be documentary, but to shed a feeling however you may interpet the intended message by the shooter.
Message edited by author 2003-05-02 08:45:26.
|
|
