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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> What is Fine Art Photography?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 43 of 43, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/02/2003 09:22:07 AM · #26
Do you think the abstract in "fine art" may be about including elements that are reminiscent of a theme rather than spelling out or making the subject in some way obvious to the viewer? A feeling, a connection to something?
05/02/2003 09:52:38 AM · #27
Originally posted by KarenB:
Do you think the abstract in "fine art" may be about including elements that are reminiscent of a theme rather than spelling out or making the subject in some way obvious to the viewer? A feeling, a connection to something?


I don't think so based on the image links that have been posted here so far... most of them are pretty straight forward subjects...
 05/02/2003 10:26:33 AM · #28
I think typically fine art photography is photography for the sake of it. It isn't created for a particular external purpose, it is just done by the artist to express a particular mood/ emotion/ concept.

By this definition, nothing on dpchallenge qualifies.

Although, also by this definition most famous portraits and landscape paintings also don't qualify as mostly they were done on commission.

So obviously I don't know what I'm talking about.
 05/02/2003 10:33:40 AM · #29
Fine art photographs, to me anyways, are made with artistic expression as the motivation behind the image's creation rather than journalism, commercialism or any other reason. I say 'motivation' as all photography is after all a form of documentation and/or journalism, and all photographs can potentially be sold. Still, the expression, I think, is key. Here are a few examples from my favourite source, photo.net

Little Prince - Marc Gouguenheim
Wave at Point Reyes - Chris Benton
Early Morning Rain - Stik Kim
Trees in the Mist - Stephen Ellaway

A mistake (points wise) I made a while back was to post this shot, one of my all-time favourites as I made it during a time that my being alone was very much on my mind...I would consider this to be fine art:

Alone
 05/02/2003 10:47:28 AM · #30
As a side, I think that it may be so hard to define 'fine art' because we think of fine art as something which elicits an emotional response, and this response is different for everyone. Complex mixtures of emotions aren't easy things to define, package, categorise or describe as their components are the basest, rawest things in our being. We can't pick them apart easily.

I am reminded of the famous description of pornography: "I know it when I see it".

05/02/2003 10:48:42 AM · #31
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Fine art photographs, to me anyways, are made with artistic expression as the motivation behind the image's creation rather than journalism, commercialism or any other reason. I say 'motivation' as all photography is after all a form of documentation and/or journalism, and all photographs can potentially be sold. Still, the expression, I think, is key. Here are a few examples from my favourite source, photo.net


I like this definition :)

05/02/2003 10:55:07 AM · #32
I dunno, i don't remember Van Gogh got comission for his works! :)
Actually getting comissioned and being paid to do something without having to WORRY about a market is also up to the artist himself -- thus it really is art, just paid. When you HAVE to create something to FIT a market segment, such as in today's world, then it's no longer "art" IMHO, because you're not expressing yourself any longer, at least part of that message will be compromised. When you get COMISSIONED< that means you get paid no matter what the result is, at least historically, you simply get paid to paint someone. Though, not a lot of artists will reveal the true self of their subjects, as doing so might be dangerous to them. But landscape paintings as a whole is usually not influenced by money in the old world.

Remember -- there are no landscape/nature photographers -- they either have day jobs OR they had their wives working for them :)


Originally posted by Gordon:
I think typically fine art photography is photography for the sake of it. It isn't created for a particular external purpose, it is just done by the artist to express a particular mood/ emotion/ concept.

By this definition, nothing on dpchallenge qualifies.

Although, also by this definition most famous portraits and landscape paintings also don't qualify as mostly they were done on commission.

So obviously I don't know what I'm talking about.

 05/02/2003 08:57:08 PM · #33
I know a local landscape/nature photographer that makes a living at it... Pag, I don't know what gives you the impression that this can't be done. I'm sure if this guy is doing it that quite a few others are as well...

Kevin Adams specializes in these areas. He has three books out. Two of them are on waterfall photography and the other one is wildflowers. These books are great because they tell you how the photos were made.

If you browse his website, you may believe that he doesn't make a living solely on this type of photography, but I believe he does. He does photography, writes, and teaches. His writing and teaching is all centered around this type of photography though, so I consider it true that he makes a living from landscape/nature photography.


05/02/2003 09:55:03 PM · #34
To a large extent, "fine art" is just defined by a different kind of market than "commercial art". People buy fine art not to hang on their wall or print in a brochure, but as an investment. Every image that has ever been considered a "great art work" is incredibly valuable, much more so than any photo that has just been considered "pretty".

This then means that a certain group of people, the art establishment, comprised of collectors, curators, auction houses, galleries, etc. define what "fine art" means. It really has nothing to do with the motivation of the artist or the subject matter or the technique. It is all to do with, really, the level of excitement an artwork can generate among this group. It could be the story behind the artist, the novelty/originality of the artwork, the depth of its meaning, etc. It tends not to be something transient like fashion, because people who buy art want to see its value go up for years and years and years, so it has to be enduring.
 05/02/2003 10:40:26 PM · #35
a friend of mine's work i guess could be classified as 'fine art photography' (he makes his living selling it). here and here are some examples of his stuff. a shot like this beautiful shot by him can be yours for only $15,000.

Message edited by author 2003-05-03 10:24:24.
 05/03/2003 01:42:27 AM · #36
MFA, huh? Great! Good for him! Too bad I didn't know about it.. looks like the exhibition has come and gone. :0(
I could have gone to see it in person ...
hmm.
 05/03/2003 10:24:57 AM · #37
by 'fine art photography' i assume you mean photography that is considered art, rather than 'fine art' versus, for example, 'abstractionism'.

in a class i recently took on contemporary art, the professor said that a loose rule of thumb to use in defining art is 1) the person calls/thinks of themself as an artist, 2) so does the 'art world'

photographers that are being/have been exhibited in the major new york museums these days include:
Thomas Struth
Rudy Burckhardt
Andreas Gursky
Matthew Barney (photography is just a derivative of his very strange art, but he has six floors(!!!) of the guggenheim at this moment)

finally, Nan Goldin's recent work at the Matthew Marks Gallery was selling for about $6500 a photo . . .

Message edited by author 2003-05-03 10:27:10.
 05/07/2003 08:19:38 AM · #38
From what I've seen surfing around 'fine art photography' sites, the big difference between what we all do and what they do lies in the physical product they're selling and nothing to do with composition, B&W, etc. The 'fine art' guys sell their product on archival paper, very high res, matted, framed, etc. aiming at providing 'art' works that you can hang on a wall for 100 years or so.

make sense?
 05/07/2003 09:27:58 AM · #39
In the USA at least, I suspect the functional difference is whether someone is willing to pay $2 or $2000 for it...
 05/12/2003 02:45:55 AM · #40
I've always throught of photoraphy as one of the fine arts. The medium may not be clay or acrylics, but a photographic image touches the heart of the observer, makes an individual think about their place in the cosmos. If this is not fine art , what is?

Message edited by author 2003-05-12 02:47:05.
 05/12/2003 03:03:56 AM · #41
I'm still wondering about the element of absurd in my picture :P
 05/12/2003 04:05:30 AM · #42
Fine art does not have to be at all "abstract", in my opinion. Fine art photography could be any photography that follows a higher standard for it's aesthetic appeal, amongst other standards. One thought I had on this subject was that "Fine Art" photography could follow any movement in art. For example, Surrealism, Romanticism, Realism, etc.,etc.. Any of these schools of thought could shape a photographers thinking in his art. So, if a photographer was influenced by Realism, his fine art photography might totally lack absraction. I was thinking Ansel Adams might be considered a fine art photographer who followed Realism. Then some might say,"No! Ansel Adams is a LANDSCAPE photographer!". Why can't landscapes be considered Fine Art? In his case I would say they are! To some who commented that none of the photographs on this site would qualify as "Fine Art", I wholeheartedly disagree.

Message edited by author 2003-05-12 04:16:40.
 05/12/2003 11:07:33 AM · #43
Originally posted by indigo997:
I'm still wondering about the element of absurd in my picture :P


:-D

Absurd as in incongruous, nonensical, opposite to reality, whimsical...

That image remains a firm favourite of mine.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/22/2025 10:03:54 AM

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: 06/22/2025 10:03:54 AM EDT.