| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/18/2007 06:09:02 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
Originally posted by American_Horse:
But, is photography considered "Fine Art"? |
By many it can be, yes.
Why?
Originally posted by American_Horse:
If so, then it has to have certain properties.
One property that comes to mind is the intention of the image has to be more than the content of the image itself such as using film instead of digital. |
I disagree. Not completely, but I do.
Why?
Originally posted by American_Horse:
Yet, others may also argue that a "Fine Art" photo image should be only of candids and never be set up in studio. |
Again, all those pesky painters, sculpters, musicians... if it wasn't for all their street art how would we know what do do? ;) Seriously... prior to photography, name any "fine art" that was done without a _whole lot_ of planning. It took most artists days, weeks, or even years to create their masterpieces. What about architecture? Many people consider some pieces of architecture to be fine art. |
Elvis Costello wrote much of his music in minutes back when he was an up and commer. His philosophy was that if music took more than a few minutes to write, than it was not worth pursueing.
Yet, he has some classics.
Your proof is not substantial.
Proove your hypothesis.
Message edited by author 2007-02-18 18:10:05.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2007 07:40:12 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
Why? Proove your hypothesis. |
Finally, some hard questions. |
|
|
|
02/18/2007 07:48:29 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
Why? |
The question was not why, it was "is it". The answer is yes, it is by many. The reasons are as varied as the people who feel that way.
Originally posted by American_Horse:
Why? |
Because there's no reason that an adequate literal capture of a photo can't be fine art. Take such "greats" as Ansel Adams. His photos are nothing more or less than what was captured by the lens, yet they're considered to be fine art by many many people.
Originally posted by American_Horse:
Elvis Costello wrote much of his music in minutes back when he was an up and commer. His philosophy was that if music took more than a few minutes to write, than it was not worth pursueing.
Yet, he has some classics.
Your proof is not substantial.
Proove your hypothesis. |
Because one person did it it's correct? I'm not proposing a hypothesis, I'm stating literal fact. The pieces that the majority of the world consider to be fine art were constructed over very long periods of time. The paintings in the Sistine Chapel, Michaelangelo's David, Renoir, Botticelli... all of their works took time and were all done in studios. Some of these people worked "in the field", but generally only when they were representing "the field".
Putting an arbitrary requirement on photography that doesn't apply to any other art form is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
02/18/2007 09:34:30 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
Because one person did it it's correct? I'm not proposing a hypothesis, I'm stating literal fact. The pieces that the majority of the world consider to be fine art were constructed over very long periods of time. The paintings in the Sistine Chapel, Michaelangelo's David, Renoir, Botticelli... all of their works took time and were all done in studios. Some of these people worked "in the field", but generally only when they were representing "the field".
Putting an arbitrary requirement on photography that doesn't apply to any other art form is ridiculous. |
Well ... I beg to submit that many people think that Impressionism is fine art and much of that was slapped on the canvas in a very short period of time. Of, course, many people of the time sneered at it as not TRUE art because it was not done over weeks (or months) in a studio but rather "en plein air" and often VERY quickly to capture light quality and shadows.
I would say that collectors of such artists as Claude Monet, Pierre Auguste Renoir, Alfred Sisley, and Frédéric Bazille as well as Camille Pissarro, Paul Cézanne, and Armand Guillaumin would argue with you that fine art did not ALWAYS have to be "constructed over very long periods of time" as you state. These people were the Elvis Costellos of the oil painting genre at one time.
A LOT more than "in the field" art has been created in the impressionistic realm that has nothing to do with fields or even outdoor subjects.
I hope this gives you something to think about other than a knee-jerk reaction to defend YOUR hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2007 09:48:20 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Greetmir:
Well ... I beg to submit that many people think that Impressionism is fine art and much of that was slapped on the canvas in a very short period of time. Of, course, many people of the time sneered at it as not TRUE art because it was not done over weeks (or months) in a studio but rather "en plein air" and often VERY quickly to capture light quality and shadows.
I would say that collectors of such artists as Claude Monet, Pierre Auguste Renoir, Alfred Sisley, and Frédéric Bazille as well as Camille Pissarro, Paul Cézanne, and Armand Guillaumin would argue with you that fine art did not ALWAYS have to be "constructed over very long periods of time" as you state. These people were the Elvis Costellos of the oil painting genre at one time.
A LOT more than "in the field" art has been created in the impressionistic realm that has nothing to do with fields or even outdoor subjects.
I hope this gives you something to think about other than a knee-jerk reaction to defend YOUR hypothesis. |
I've never said that art *can't* be done in the field. I was merely arguing against  American_Horse's flawed supposition that all photographic art must be done in the field or it's not fine art. |
|
|
|
02/18/2007 10:04:00 PM · #31 |
| As a practical criterion, I'd suggest that anything set out on display or hung on a wall in a living room or museum by anyone other than the artist or the artist's mother is a fine piece of art. |
|
|
|
02/18/2007 10:05:10 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
Again, all those pesky painters, sculpters, musicians... if it wasn't for all their street art how would we know what do do? ;) Seriously... prior to photography, name any "fine art" that was done without a _whole lot_ of planning. It took most artists days, weeks, or even years to create their masterpieces. What about architecture? Many people consider some pieces of architecture to be fine art. |
Prior to photography, painters were the recorders of society and history. Consider post "photography invention painting": expressionism & abstract painting. They didnât just occur because artists fell on their heads. Photography became the historian; the artists, those âfine artistsâ (AKA âDead European White Guysâ) had to re-invent themselves to keep making a living. The church was no longer the greatest benefactor for the âfineâ artist, the painters. Photography stepped in and made its mark.
The notion of a âstarvingâ artist is a 20th century phenomenon.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2007 10:10:30 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As a practical criterion, I'd suggest that anything set out on display or hung on a wall in a living room or museum by anyone other than the artist or the artist's mother is a fine piece of art. |
LOL then Thomas Kinkade is a fine artist? Those dogs playing poker? ...any painting on velvet is fine art? My nieces can do better.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2007 10:28:46 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As a practical criterion, I'd suggest that anything set out on display or hung on a wall in a living room or museum by anyone other than the artist or the artist's mother is a fine piece of art. |
"Somebody other than the artist" is a very slippery criterion. How would you account for all those posthumously appreciated artists?
Frank Zappa thought that anything can become art as soon as one draws a border around it. For example, Joe blowing his nose quietly in the corner does not qualify, but if he comes out on the stage and does the same, declaring it as a theatrical piece, it becomes a manifestation of art.
Such point of view has a big practical convenience of an unambiguous, easily verifiable criterion. However, the problem is that kitsch and any tasteless attempt at art also pass.
Message edited by author 2007-02-18 22:29:12. |
|
|
|
02/18/2007 11:09:43 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
Because there's no reason that an adequate literal capture of a photo can't be fine art. Take such "greats" as Ansel Adams. His photos are nothing more or less than what was captured by the lens, yet they're considered to be fine art by many many people. |
This is sort of peripheral tot he discussion, but that's absolutely not true. Most of Ansel's "great", iconic images represent a revisioning of a scene. Many, many photographers have attempted to pay homage to his work(s) by going into the field and reproducing it, and as far as I know none have succeeded in making a perfect reproduction of any of them. Unlike, I might add, the Old masters in painting, where generations upon generations of followers have created reproductions so good that it takes an expert to determine they are not original art. Ansel was a consummate craftsman, and his equal has never appeared. There are many fine print makers, but he was in a class by himself.
I have had the privilege of working in his darkroom printing from his negatives (under his supervision) and it is staggeringly difficult. And, of course, the printing is only the half of it; the creation of the negative is the foundation on which the print is built, and his negatives are extraordinarily rich & complex. I tell you flat-out; you can travel to Yosemite and go to the locations from which he shot and look at the "reality" that he was working from, and it will blow your mind. He peeled everything away from his best images except the essence of form and the quintessence of light.
So, among photographers, if one is willing to accept that a photographer can be a "master" and his/her work "fine art", Ansel is one of the first examples of that which comes to most people's minds...
Sorry for being so passionate, but the man is SO much more than "literal representation". For a very, very fine photographer who is much more literal, check out the work of Eliot Porter.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2007 12:06:55 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
I've never said that art *can't* be done in the field. I was merely arguing against American_Horse's flawed supposition that all photographic art must be done in the field or it's not fine art. |
Re-read the opening post. I NEVER said anything to that.
I proposed an 'argument' by others. I am a third person.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2007 12:20:17 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
Re-read the opening post. I NEVER said anything to that.
I proposed an 'argument' by others. I am a third person. |
Yet it became yours when I said that most work was done in-studio and took time, and you responded with "Your proof is not substantial. Proove your hypothesis." You were arguing for the statement whether they were your original words or not. |
|
|
|
02/19/2007 01:29:07 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
Originally posted by American_Horse:
Re-read the opening post. I NEVER said anything to that.
I proposed an 'argument' by others. I am a third person. |
Yet it became yours when I said that most work was done in-studio and took time, and you responded with "Your proof is not substantial. Proove your hypothesis." You were arguing for the statement whether they were your original words or not. |
No, I wanted you to expand on your thoughts.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2007 02:09:04 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by dsterner:
LOL then Thomas Kinkade is a fine artist? |
I suppose I might make a special exception to my rule in the case of assembly-line productions. : )
But if he'd only ever produced 53 original works, each hand-painted completely by himself, one might evaluate his work differently ...
Message edited by author 2007-02-19 23:30:48. |
|
|
|
02/19/2007 10:48:52 PM · #40 |
Are these artists/photographer considered masters of "fine art"?
Fine Art Photography- Masters
|
|
|
|
02/20/2007 11:44:55 AM · #41 |
Photography can be "Fine Art" depending on the subject (by that I mean that a "Myspace" style photo is not fine art) but rather something you would see on here, I would call "Fine Art"
Also to be called "Fine Art" I belive that you need to follow the basic rules of photography, such as the rule of thirds and ect. |
|
|
|
02/20/2007 11:47:40 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
How would you account for all those posthumously appreciated artists?
|
posthumous has very fine tastes in art :-)
|
|
|
|
02/20/2007 11:50:21 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by silentnight745:
but rather something you would see on here, I would call "Fine Art"
|
To be quite contrary, most of the art you see on DPC is pop art, at least that which floats to the top.
Originally posted by silentnight745:
Also to be called "Fine Art" I belive that you need to follow the basic rules of photography, such as the rule of thirds and ect. |
That's called not sucking at photography.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2007 12:03:25 PM · #44 |
Does anyone mind if I print out and frame this thread for my next installation?
Message edited by author 2007-02-20 12:03:39. |
|
|
|
02/20/2007 12:20:07 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
Because there's no reason that an adequate literal capture of a photo can't be fine art. Take such "greats" as Ansel Adams. His photos are nothing more or less than what was captured by the lens, yet they're considered to be fine art by many many people. |
Not to pick on you, but this statement is so far from the truth as to be staggering. You need to see some of the original negatives compared to the prints to realise that I suppose. Moonrise over Hernandez is the best example. The well known print version has an almost black sky - yet it was shot in the afternoon. A straight print has a much whiter sky.
These are far, far from 'what was captured by the lens'
Message edited by author 2007-02-20 12:23:04. |
|
|
|
02/20/2007 12:36:49 PM · #46 |
there are some people who are able to catch something extra, some feeling, something impossible to define, but it is still there. that very special "something" is what makes "ordinary" photography some fine art to me.
it is not only about a "story" behind a photo, I belive all the good photos have those stories. it is not about the PP either: somehow I don't think 100% digitally made posters with monsters and star wars ads are "fine art". but that feeling, some special mood, something I would like to look at more and more (and that is why I would like to have it on my wall at home and that is why there are so many fine art collectors).
there is some special influence and some special interaction between a viewer and a fine art piece, something that stays longer than star wars amusement or photojournalism empathy. |
|
|
|
02/20/2007 01:02:38 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
Because there's no reason that an adequate literal capture of a photo can't be fine art. Take such "greats" as Ansel Adams. His photos are nothing more or less than what was captured by the lens, yet they're considered to be fine art by many many people. |
Not to pick on you, but this statement is so far from the truth as to be staggering. You need to see some of the original negatives compared to the prints to realise that I suppose. Moonrise over Hernandez is the best example. The well known print version has an almost black sky - yet it was shot in the afternoon. A straight print has a much whiter sky.
These are far, far from 'what was captured by the lens' |
I don't want to sidetrack too much, but I have to agree with Gordon. Almost none of Ansel Adams' work was straight from the camera. The vast majority of his work was done in the dark room. He used very advanced darkroom techniques. This is why his negatives were destroyed, to preserve the integrity of his art.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2007 01:27:11 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Almost none of Ansel Adams' work was straight from the camera. The vast majority of his work was done in the dark room. He used very advanced darkroom techniques. This is why his negatives were destroyed, to preserve the integrity of his art. |
I think you are a bit confused. Brett Weston destroyed all his negatives so people couldn't re-print his work. Ansel Adams wanted his negatives reused (it's that whole saw about the score & the performance)
As far as I know, they are still all available for people to reprint from (for selected values of 'people') Some have been damaged by fire/floods, but not intentionally. I think the University of Arizona currently has his archives.
Message edited by author 2007-02-20 13:30:08. |
|
|
|
02/20/2007 01:33:14 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think you are a bit confused. |
I probably am, I usually research to refresh my memory before I post such statements, but admittedly didn't do that this time.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2007 01:38:02 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Almost none of Ansel Adams' work was straight from the camera. The vast majority of his work was done in the dark room. He used very advanced darkroom techniques. This is why his negatives were destroyed, to preserve the integrity of his art. |
I think you are a bit confused. Brett Weston destroyed all his negatives so people couldn't re-print his work. Ansel Adams wanted his negatives reused (it's that whole saw about the score & the performance)
As far as I know, they are still all available for people to reprint from (for selected values of 'people') Some have been damaged by fire/floods, but not intentionally. I think the University of Arizona currently has his archives. |
His negatives weren't "destroyed to preserve the integrity of his art": the decision was one made by his financial advisers, who felt he and his family would be best served by limiting the production of his work, thereby dramatically increasing its value. Until quite late in his life Ansel was still doing "Print on Demand": you could call him up and say "I want a 16x20 of 'Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico' and he'd make one up for you at his standard print rate, a couple hundred bucks if I recall correctly.
As he grew older some concerned associates of his finally convinced him to limit production of his images to increase the value of the body of his work and better provide for himself and his family. He resisted this for quite a while, but eventually gave in. It was announced that he was doing a "last printing" oh his iconic images, and that after this time the negatives would be marked (not destroyed) so they could not be printed again to match the originals. If I recall correctly, the negatives were marked by punching them.
The negatives, and the rest of his archives, went to the Center for Creative Photography at the University of Arizona upon his death, as Gordon mentioned.
R.
|
|
