Professional Standards in Documentary and Fine Art (Staged)

Retune said:
Personally, I wouldn't conflate Fine Art with Staged. For me, it's much more about artistic vs commercial intent. Documentary photography can in some cases be Fine Art. But as Ed suggests, definitions can be slippery things. Outside the art world, 'fine art' has come to mean commercial work with an 'arty' veneer, which is pretty much a reversal of its academic meaning - see the website of every other wedding photographer, or for that matter of Peter Lik, who has made a career of marketing largely decorative commercial pictures, with all the artistic depth of a nice postcard, as 'fine art'. This is Martin Parr on Peter Lik supposedly selling a picture for £4m:

“I’ve never even heard of him,” Martin Parr, the renowned British photographer, says. “It’s pretty astonishing. I’ve looked at his work today and though he’s a very good commercial photographer who can take pictures people like, he has no standing whatever in the fine-art world that I belong to.”

www.independent.co.uk

Peter Lik: The self-proclaimed 'fine-art photographer' whose work

One of the Australian's images sold for £4m this week, but he divides opinion
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

Note that Parr, who many would think of as a documentary photographer (albeit with a rather jaundiced eye), regards himself as part of the Fine Art world (some other documentary photographers may reject this definition of their own work, of course). I don't think this is just snobbery. Parr's work, though it has sometimes been divisive, is clearly done with real artistic intent and has a depth to it that's missing from most largely commercial work. While he's obviously a savvy marketer himself, I'm pretty sure he'd continue to do serious work even if he wasn't. It pays his bills, but that's not why he does it. He is, by Danielle's definition, a Fine Artist with his own vision, except that (or even though) most of his work is not staged.
Click to expand...
This is the best take on this thread IMHO.
 
Ed Sutton said:
"When the stuff is too journalistic and documentary then it is journalism, if it is too conceptual and arty then that is another thing, but where the two meet - that is interesting."
Tom Wood
Click to expand...


For me the intersection between landscape and documentary is a very interesting area. There are pro's and con's to working in these grey areas; I do feel that one can produce work that is subtly different to the mainstream and that's a plus. But if viewers see photography strictly within categories and you're working outside them, you don't "fit" and that's a definite negative.
 
jerry12953 said:
But if viewers see photography strictly within categories and you're working outside them, you don't "fit" and that's a definite negative.
Click to expand...
On a broadcast programme about the Surrealists, someone made a comment along the lines of "one decade's outsiders are the next decade's insiders".

I took that to mean that once people get over "the shock of the new", their opinions change to accept the different approach.
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
But if viewers see photography strictly within categories and you're working outside them, you don't "fit" and that's a definite negative.
Click to expand...
To me that seems to be the "trick", you can only move the boundaries a little bit at a time and you have to bring people with you, or you have to make a confident and noisey splash at the edge of a genre. For example the New Topographics moved the landscape boundary to include the man made and whilst no doubt the work was built up over years they largely seem to have got traction at a single exhibition with a clever name.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
On a broadcast programme about the Surrealists, someone made a comment along the lines of "one decade's outsiders are the next decade's insiders".

I took that to mean that once people get over "the shock of the new", their opinions change to accept the different approach.
Click to expand...

sirch said:
To me that seems to be the "trick", you can only move the boundaries a little bit at a time and you have to bring people with you, or you have to make a confident and noisey splash at the edge of a genre. For example the New Topographics moved the landscape boundary to include the man made and whilst no doubt the work was built up over years they largely seem to have got traction at a single exhibition with a clever name.
Click to expand...


Both excellent points. I do hope the OP is still watching this thread.
 
sirch said:
To me that seems to be the "trick", you can only move the boundaries a little bit at a time and you have to bring people with you, or you have to make a confident and noisey splash at the edge of a genre. For example the New Topographics moved the landscape boundary to include the man made and whilst no doubt the work was built up over years they largely seem to have got traction at a single exhibition with a clever name.
Click to expand...
There's a review of a Martin Parr exhibition at Tottenham Hotspur's ground in the Graun today. From which I've lifted this:

Martin Parr bridges the gap perfectly. “This is what’s amazing about having Martin,” says Frankel. “He’s a big name and really well respected as an artist. But on another level, his photos are easy to understand. People get it straight away … The vast majority of people who come in here will never have been to a contemporary art gallery. We’re indoctrinating people by stealth!”


www.theguardian.com

‘It’s very tribal’: Martin Parr on capturing the real beautiful game

A gallery embedded in Tottenham Hotspur’s ground is aiming to capitalise on its not-insignificant footfall, starting with a show by the celebrated Magnum photographer. Will it be a game changer?
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Ed Sutton said:
Martin Parr bridges the gap perfectly. “This is what’s amazing about having Martin,” says Frankel. “He’s a big name and really well respected as an artist. But on another level, his photos are easy to understand. People get it straight away … The vast majority of people who come in here will never have been to a contemporary art gallery. We’re indoctrinating people by stealth!”
Click to expand...
I wonder if there's any hard evidence for those assertions? :tumbleweed:
 
lemo said:
There are several levels of understanding. Just like the Simpsons or Sponge Bob are also easy understood by children, only differently.
Click to expand...


Have you ever considred submitting your work to Private Eye for Pseuds Corner?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top