Fine art?

Forbiddenbiker said:
:lol: :shrug: :thumbs:

I guess we can see fine art in two ways, one its a kind of brief title for introduction and/or explanation of an artists serious intentions within a body of work, and two its a label attached to fake this intention... usually for profit.
Click to expand...

fine art more often than not is a pair of boobs in a landscape shot printed in B&W. there is nothing fine or art about it :|
 
POAH said:
:lol:

its the same poncy nonsense that surrounds fine art or glicee. made up sentances to try and make it sound better than it actually is
Click to expand...

I visited the hereford photography festival last year and while there were some amazing exhibits, there were also some not so good exhibits, the not so good work almost always had a description flooded with words grabbed from a thesaurus in a vain attempt to justify work that was under par. These collections of work weren't very transparent, they needed the deep and meaningful descriptions to make them fluent. The better work was totally fluent, spoke volumes and made me really think about the work in question, the person who created it and what they were trying to achieve.
Don't get me wrong, i love challenging art, be it photography, painted whatever, but as soon as the creator beats about the bush and tries to draw upon associations between this and that, and it isn't exactly clear then i swiftly walk by.
 
Last edited:
Simon photo said:
I visited the hereford photography festival last year and while there were some amazing exhibits, there were also some not so good exhibits, the not so good work almost always had a description flooded with words grabbed from a thesaurus in a vain attempt to justify work that was under par. These collections of work weren't very transparent, they needed the deep and meaningful descriptions to make them fluent. The better work was totally fluent, spoke volumes and made me really think about the work in question, the person who created it and what they were trying to achieve.
Don't get me wrong, i love challenging art, be it photography, painted whatever, but as soon as the creator beats about the bush and tries to draw upon associations between this and that, and it isn't exactly clear then i swiftly walk by.
Click to expand...

I've experienced this before, both the work & the concept have to work together to define the piece art. Often in exhibitions, one can't work without the other.
 
I think Klute has hit the nail on the head in what Fine Art Photography used to be however I also agree in a way with POAH that the term 'Fine Art' is now applied to a lot of the "Black&White Nudes in the Forest" type of photography, there are a few local photographers I know who class colour selection as fine art.

I think the sort of photographers that would have been classed Fine Art, such as Sherman, Gursky and Dikstra, etc, are now known as contemporary photographers or artists who use photography. The art world loves to label. My work is very conceptual so I would call myself a 'contemporary photographer' when exhibiting although I would rather not categorise myself. ;)
 
On the subject of fine art, anyone see the south bank show with damien hurst? Maybe i am a little naive but i was surprised that a lot of his stuff isn't actually by his hand, but other artists working in studios here and there. Very factory!
 
He actually had the artist Rachel Howard working for him in her early days, she made most of his spot paintings I believe. Which is fair enough if the concept was his.
 
I can't really catagorize myself. I'm more like an enthusiast than a professional, I find the theory & history of photography interesting. I prefer creating work that I can experiment with so I suppose, if anything, I'm an experimental photographer? I appreciate fine art photography & have my theories as to what it actually is but I'm not one. This thread makes an interesting read :}
 
All very subjective isn't it? Can a pair of boobs in a forest in b&w not be considered art? If Damien Hirst is now employing people do do his artwork isn't that all a bit corporate and branded?

Can a humorous photograph be considered fine art I wonder? or is fine art photography considered to be all serious and deep? :thinking:
 
The photographs that I consider art aren't really photographs in a conventional sense of the word, they are something which has been created, and it just so happens that a camera was used in the process. They are not documents or representations of anything 'real' and it would be impossible to point to a place & say 'that's where so & so was made', because the final piece has nothing to do with the place (or whatever) which was used (as a tool, maybe) to create it.
 
Last edited:
Joenail said:
The photographs that I consider art aren't really photographs in a conventional sense of the word, they are something which has been created.
Click to expand...

Yeah definitely. I don't think anyone can just take a photograph & necesarily claim it as art.
 
Vic said:
I think the sort of photographers that would have been classed Fine Art, such as Sherman, Gursky and Dikstra, etc
Click to expand...

TBH I would class them as crap lol nothing fine or arty about anything I can find on google of those three.
 
POAH said:
TBH I would class them as crap lol nothing fine or arty about anything I can find on google of those three.
Click to expand...

I'm sure a lot of people do class them as that as well, different strokes! Google is an odd viewing experience mind, god forbid we judge all artists on that ;)
 
POAH said:
TBH I would class them as crap lol nothing fine or arty about anything I can find on google of those three.
Click to expand...

Why? :D
 
djinn said:
I asked the same question on `shutterfinger` blog, heres the response Gordon gave :

Here is Alain Briot’s 14-point checklist from Marketing Fine Art Photography:

1:Fine art photography is first about the artist.
2:The photographer must consider himself an artist.
3:The artist must demonstrate control of the creative process and final outcome.
4:A fine art photograph is done with the goal of creating a work of art.
5:A fine art photograph is not just documentary.
6:The image represents an interpretation of the subject.
7:A fine art photograph has an emotional content.
8:The composition is complex and sophisticated.
9:A metaphorical level of meaning is present in the image.
10:The emphasis is on quality instead of quantity.
11:Cost considerations are secondary.
12:The artist wrote an artist statement.
13:Individual pieces are part of a larger body of work.
14:The work is discussed in relationship to other works of art.

Briot provides a full explanation of each one in the book. Quibblers might take issue with one or two, but on the whole Briot’s list presents a clear picture (pardon the expression) of what’s required.

My personal opinion is that “fine art photography” is as much a marketing term as anything else. It’s a label you (the photographer) apply to your work when you want to sell it to people who value the visual appeal of a photographic print as much as the image itself. I have to admit that as marketing terms go, the difference between “art photography” and “fine art photography” escapes me.

Keep in mind that people who buy (fine) art photographs normally intend to frame and display them. If they spend several hundred dollars for a print plus matting and framing, they want their friends, family and associates to believe said photo has artistic merit. This is where credentials such as artist statements, gallery show credits, art school degrees, and bodies of work come in handy. If the work itself strains artistic credibility, credentials help to reinforce the seriousness of the artist (if not the art).

To summarize, my position is that you can call your photographs whatever you like among family and friends, including “fine art.” If, however, you plan to sell them as such, your work will most likely be held to artistic standards such as the ones Briot has listed. You don’t have to agree with them; you can even ignore some of them; but to ignore all of them is to render your work unmarketable as art photography.
Click to expand...

I'm so glad Alain Briot’s has clearly defined the lines - we must be eternally grateful. Im afraid that his definition is about marketing

In my opnion, any image, or object, or painting or photograph could be defined as artistic

that is

- the architect created the vision that the builders built, or
- the mason carved the gargoyle
- the interior decorator designed the wallpaper
- the artist painted a picture
- the photographer shot the photograph

At all levels, the craftsman can be called an artist, from the architect to the photographer

A fine artist is someone who elevates the usual day to day stuff - i.e. just shooting a wedding, just carving a gargoyle, just designing a building and intentionally takes the process to the next level. That might be "slowing down" using finer materials, using more effort at every stage.
 
Vic said:
I think Klute has hit the nail on the head in what Fine Art Photography used to be however I also agree in a way with POAH that the term 'Fine Art' is now applied to a lot of the "Black&White Nudes in the Forest" type of photography, there are a few local photographers I know who class colour selection as fine art.

I think the sort of photographers that would have been classed Fine Art, such as Sherman, Gursky and Dikstra...
Click to expand...

POAH said:
TBH I would class them as crap lol nothing fine or arty about anything I can find on google of those three.
Click to expand...

Joenail said:
Why? :D
Click to expand...

Poah's image critique posts seem to be limited to the nude/glamour section of the forum and while I'm unfamiliar with Dikstra I don't think Gursky or Sherman's images tend to feature boobs, bums or diffuse glow. ;)
 
How can anyone get even the nearest grasp on what said photographers put into their art by typing their name into Google image search! Sure you will see the most talked about, re posted and linked images but come on! I watched a documentary on crewdson not long ago and was oblivious to his working methods but now i have seen his workflow and mindset i consider him to be a true artist.
So what exactly is fine art photography? Take my profile image
light_work.jpg
[/IMG]what category would it fall into? I would be interested to know peoples views, its not documenting anything, it has a meaning, to myself, it may not be obvious to everyone, i don't tend to pigeon hole my images other than the obvious categories.
 
brianwar said:
Poah's image critique posts seem to be limited to the nude/glamour section of the forum and while I'm unfamiliar with Dikstra I don't think Gursky or Sherman's images tend to feature boobs, bums or diffuse glow. ;)
Click to expand...

where I post critique is irrelavent - I could post in any of the C&C forums should I wish and I do (check out transport). can't remember the last time I seen diffuse glow in the G&N section?????
 
macro :lol:

Simon photo said:
How can anyone get even the nearest grasp on what said photographers put into their art by typing their name into Google image search! Sure you will see the most talked about, re posted and linked images but come on! I watched a documentary on crewdson not long ago and was oblivious to his working methods but now i have seen his workflow and mindset i consider him to be a true artist.
So what exactly is fine art photography? Take my profile image
light_work.jpg
[/IMG]what category would it fall into? I would be interested to know peoples views, its not documenting anything, it has a meaning, to myself, it may not be obvious to everyone, i don't tend to pigeon hole my images other than the obvious categories.
Click to expand...
 
Simon, I'd consider your picture to be photography. Nothing else. Maybe there should be something to do with the body/human form :thinking:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top