What is 'Fine Art'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
there's a very long thread entitled i believe "what is art" which covers this in great detail before degenerating into a slanging match between David and I and getting locked (which is why i'm not getting drawn into another moose vs pookey saga)
 
Seriously there are so many of these threads... use the advanced keyword search function.


Capture.JPG
 
I'd seen the term used most often as a description for pictures of naked women, so that one could have a good look and pretend to retain respectability.
 
Julian... you may not have seen the myriad other threads on here, but it sadly seems to be an unwritten rule that as soon as any thread mentions ART in relation to photography, the battle lines become drawn with David and a small number of people defending the fact that Photography can actually be an Art, with a far larger number of people who simply dismiss the whole thing outright as "a consignment of geriatric shoe menders"... It's a shame, but pretty much every thread has degenerated into personal attacks (from both sides) and ended with the inevitable lock. I say its a shame, because frankly, I've learned more about what matters to me about photography from comments and insights posted by @Pookeyhead and @Byker28i amongst others... And, I have to say, in the face of the amount of insults and attacks David had had for putting forward his views (albeit occasionally very forthrightly) I'm amazed that he perseveres with this place - and, personally , i'm very, very happy that he does.
 
JulesP said:
Just to be clear - when I started the thread, I DID do a search for 'fine art' and nothing came up in the first 50 or so thread titles that looked anything like relevant hence starting a thread.
Click to expand...
I took the original question as asking the difference between 'fine art' and 'art' in relation to photography rather than asking the big ART question..

I would say that 'fine art photography' is primarily decorative, while 'art' photography is more intellectually based.
 
TheBigYin said:
Julian... you may not have seen the myriad other threads on here, but it sadly seems to be an unwritten rule that as soon as any thread mentions ART in relation to photography, the battle lines become drawn with David and a small number of people defending the fact that Photography can actually be an Art, with a far larger number of people who simply dismiss the whole thing outright as "a consignment of geriatric shoe menders"... It's a shame, but pretty much every thread has degenerated into personal attacks (from both sides) and ended with the inevitable lock. I say its a shame, because frankly, I've learned more about what matters to me about photography from comments and insights posted by @Pookeyhead and @Byker28i amongst others... And, I have to say, in the face of the amount of insults and attacks David had had for putting forward his views (albeit occasionally very forthrightly) I'm amazed that he perseveres with this place - and, personally , i'm very, very happy that he does.
Click to expand...
I'm happy to listen to anyone's views, controversial or not. That's the point of asking in my opinion - to hear the views of others.
 
JulesP said:
I'm happy to listen to anyone's views, controversial or not. That's the point of asking in my opinion - to hear the views of others.
Click to expand...

if only some of the other members were as open minded, these threads would be far more pleasant to post in, and far less troublesome to moderate.
 
StephenM said:
Alex, I'm not sure that simply posting that in your opinion fine art is rubbish really adds anything to the debate. I've seen countless threads on this topic come to nothing because of asserions like this from people who admit that they are ignorant and prefer to remain so. This may not apply to you, of course. I'd have a higher opinion if reasons were given, but then I prefer reasons to blind faith. I'll freely admit that there are some subjects where I have an opinion that the sommon consensus is wrong, but where it's not important enough for me to research it. And in those cases, I don't bother entering into debate.
Click to expand...

As I read the initial question it was relative to photography and as my arch enemy ;) has pointed out there have been plenty of posts on this type of thing.

I mainly posted to keep my numbers up in the right places and figured just a simple opinion would suffice as a gesture supporting all those that have said what I would have said before :)

For me primarily photographically the images are rarely reactionary, mostly documentative and have had little progress or development from concept or process/practice it's commonly just aesthetic with little critical development or reaction to what has come before

But honestly I think fine art photography tends to stick to traditional 'looks nice' rather than a more contemporary responsive or research based method

That's about the short end of it that I can get out of my head on my phone haha, hope that helps illustrate what I mean

But yeah, sticking a bride in a window with her arms spread and dropping it into black and white or crushing the blacks to create a cack over pushed film look for me just doesn't cut it when I see the term "fine art photography"

Same as grabbing a shot of some sun rays in a cavern in arizona also doesn't hit the spot haha

Maybe it's just taste

Ironically I suspect I market myself as fine art weddings just for s***s and giggles, if it sells then great, even better if someone wants to discuss it ;)

As always we're limited by language however :)
 
TheBigYin said:
if only some of the other members were as open minded, these threads would be far more pleasant to post in, and far less troublesome to moderate.
Click to expand...

The trouble with these debates is that they polarise too quickly to i'm right, no you aren't, yes i am style b*****ks where no one learns anything useful - also I'm open to intelligent debate, but not to being told that i'm categorically wrong because xyz member is "the authority" on the given matter... facts can be right or wrong, but opinions are merely different.

That aside Alex has the right of it that a lot f what is described as "fine art" in photography isn't worthy of the name (and i'm not talking about the sort of stuff david does i'm talking about the 'fine art as marketing' style description where the only reason you know its any kind of art is because it says so on the togs website)
 
Last edited:
Cue debate about Peter Lik... LOL

Circular debates... gotta love 'em.
 
Pookeyhead said:
That's a serious oversight!
Click to expand...
The ipad app is quite limiting. Now I'm back on a proper pc I can see the advanced search function.

Next search - Peter Lik

Edit - Oooh they're a bit 'vibrant' ;)
 
Last edited:
if by Vibrant you mean "seriously depleting the staff room's store of red-cards and places on the naughty-step" then yo've pretty much got it nailed...
 
JulesP said:
The ipad app is quite limiting. Now I'm back on a proper pc I can see the advanced search function.

Next search - Peter Lik

Edit - Oooh they're a bit 'vibrant' ;)
Click to expand...
You don't have to use the app, in fact I never do, it's pants.
 
I guess he's one not to mention too often;)

I can't be bothered using web view though Phil
 
TheBigYin said:
if by Vibrant you mean "seriously depleting the staff room's store of red-cards and places on the naughty-step" then yo've pretty much got it nailed...
Click to expand...

you're okay Mark I've been arguing with or about occupational health for much of the day , I don't have the mental energy for another instalment of Lik v Gursky
 
TheBigYin said:
Julian... you may not have seen the myriad other threads on here, but it sadly seems to be an unwritten rule that as soon as any thread mentions ART in relation to photography, the battle lines become drawn with David and a small number of people defending the fact that Photography can actually be an Art, with a far larger number of people who simply dismiss the whole thing outright as "a consignment of geriatric shoe menders"... It's a shame, but pretty much every thread has degenerated into personal attacks (from both sides) and ended with the inevitable lock. I say its a shame, because frankly, I've learned more about what matters to me about photography from comments and insights posted by @Pookeyhead and @Byker28i amongst others... And, I have to say, in the face of the amount of insults and attacks David had had for putting forward his views (albeit occasionally very forthrightly) I'm amazed that he perseveres with this place - and, personally , i'm very, very happy that he does.
Click to expand...
This^
In fact I don't think I've seen a post on TP I have agreed with so strongly.
 
to be fair although David and I vehemently disagree about various things , I too have learnt a lot from his more reasoned posts (which is why I don't have him on ignore as that would be to throw the baby out with the b*****ks)- and from Bykers although he and I manage not to fall out in the same way.

that said I could say the same (the learning i mean) for many other members in various disciplines and specialities
 
Last edited:
Have there been other threads precisely about the difference between art and fine art?
 
ianp5a said:
Have there been other threads precisely about the difference between art and fine art?
Click to expand...

"what is art" covered it pretty well before degenerating
 
Discussing whether something is art or not is clearly very contentious. But it's different from discussing different types of art. Sure people will sidetrack it. But that's happens a lot, and should not prevent people from discussing a topic of their choice.
 
Last edited:
It really is simple. It is thus:

Fine art is concept driven.. it's in response to something. It communicates an idea, or even ideology. It is often designed to challenge or question popular opinion. It's designed to be controversial and make people think. The dictionary definition is quite simply wrong. Dictionaries are not flexible or responsive enough to keep up with the words they are defining usually, and this is one such case.

Decorative art is designed to be an example of craft skill. It is designed to be pretty or attractive, or appreciated for aesthetic values alone, and the subject is not particularly important (although it still can be a factor).

These things change however. Fine art 200 years ago would be what we know think of as decorative art. Some however, still transcend time... Turner for example... it's STILL challenging today... whereas a Constable and other romantic painters, while still admired and rightly so (in a historical context)... would be utterly dismissed as sentimental crap if they painted such things today.

Right here... right now, in the post modern era (or beyond as many would suggest we are) Art has to DO something... it can't just be something nice to hand on your wall.

It's kind of like that.... really... it is.

/thread.

Thank you.
 
Pookeyhead said:
It's kind of like that.... really... it is.

/thread.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

and that precisely demonstrates why people get p***ed off - David is a very knowledgeable guy, but his opinion is only his opinion its not a case of" I say this is so so /thread"

In this case he has neatly described the academic description of fine art - however this has very little, virtually nothing in fact, to do with how many photographers determine wherher there work is art or fine art which has far more to do with marketting than the halls of academe.

That aside I generally agree that art has to do something, but i vigorously disagree that it can't just be pretty picture that you hang on your wall - that pretty picture does do something whether it soothes or inspires - a picture that does nothing is not a picture at all its just wall paper - in the same way that dead hedgehog is elevator music rather than a rousing score.

However I'm not pursuing this debate - I'm off to bed
 
big soft moose said:
and that precisely demonstrates why people get p***ed off - David is a very knowledgeable guy, but his opinion is only his opinion its not a case of" I say this is so so /thread"
Click to expand...


It is not JUST my opinion though. If it was, I'd not be saying so with such confidence. It is the opinion of many, many others, all of which have studied art seriously as an academic subject, and also as a practice. I am not alone in my opinions. Far from it. I appreciate that others will disagree on here, but they are not people who have studied art seriously all their lives and/or been practising artists... they're usually just blokes on the internet who don't understand what they're talking about. The weight of a person's credentials, education and experience adds weight and credibility to their opinions... the bloke of the internet has no such credentials usually in this forum... they just don't like what they see, and dismiss it because it's not something they'd want to hang on their wall. This STAGGERING level of ignorance of art has been demonstrated time and time again on here. Hence the rolling of eyes and sighs when yet another thread dredges up the subject again, so have the same inevitable debate with the same inevitable outcomes.

If you don't get art... just leave it at that. It doesn't matter. Here's the deal... you stop calling art a load of hackneyed nepotism, and I'll stop calling your pretty landscapes/shots of your kids/slow shutter speed shots of jetties and piers/ birds on twigs/bugs on leaves/or light painted "orbs a load of derivative, self-indulgent and redundant sh*t.


big soft moose said:
In this case he has neatly described the academic description of fine art - however this has very little, virtually nothing in fact, to do with how many photographers determine wherher there work is art or fine art which has far more to do with marketting than the halls of academe.
Click to expand...

No Pete... others decide if your work is art, not you as the author. You're obsessed with marketing. The vast majority of artists don't have a pot to p**s in.



big soft moose said:
However I'm not pursuing this debate - I'm off to bed
Click to expand...

Probably for the best Pete.
 
Last edited:
Just because academics think something doesn't mean it's right though :)

There's what the academics think, mass public, dictionaries and then us idiots on photo forums :)

Most are likely valid I'd say
 
Fine Art - Ansel Adams style! Fail to see how that is 'controversial' - which is one descriptor David seems to profligate!

The_Tetons_and_the_Snake_River-Ansel-Adams.jpg
 
Pookeyhead said:
The weight of a person's credentials, education and experience adds weight and credibility to their opinions... the bloke of the internet has no such credentials usually in this forum... they just don't like what they see, and dismiss it because it's not something they'd want to hang on their wall. This STAGGERING level of ignorance of art has been demonstrated time and time again on here.
Click to expand...

And thereby is the whole rub is it not David? The inference, of course, being that without Academia and Qualifications the rest are ignorant, incapable of artistic interpretation and/or appreciation?

I too must find my bed!
 
chuckles said:
And thereby is the whole rub is it not David? The inference, of course, being that without Academia and Qualifications the rest are ignorant, incapable of artistic interpretation and/or appreciation?
Click to expand...


Not necessarily, but it's a fair assessment to make that someone who spends their lives in study of a subject, probably has a more valid opinion than those who have not.. yes.. why is that so hard to accept?
 
Pookeyhead said:
they're usually just blokes on the internet who don't understand what they're talking about.
Click to expand...
Hence my asking. I am the first to admit I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to 'art'. I know what I like and what I don't like but I don't know what constitutes 'art' or 'fine art'.
As per my original post, a lot of what is described as 'fine art' is quite often mediocre at best and relies heavily on the likes of photoshop. That is the bit I am trying to understand.


And before anyone points it out - I'm no pro photographer either:)
 
chuckles said:
Fine Art - Ansel Adams style! Fail to see how that is 'controversial' - which is one descriptor David seems to profligate!

The_Tetons_and_the_Snake_River-Ansel-Adams.jpg
Click to expand...

It's also old. Art moves on. It a brilliant example of a superb craftsman who I admire greatly. What was art when created, still is art now, but only because we have afforded it a historical context. I'm not suggesting the work of Adams is not anything other than superb, but to keep trying to emulate it NOW like so many amateurs do is never going to result in art. You've missed that boat mate... it sailed at least 60 years ago.
 
JulesP said:
Hence my asking. I am the first to admit I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to 'art'. I know what I like and what I don't like but I don't know what constitutes 'art' or 'fine art'.
As per my original post, a lot of what is described as 'fine art' is quite often mediocre at best and relies heavily on the likes of photoshop. That is the bit I am trying to understand.


And before anyone points it out - I'm no pro photographer either:)
Click to expand...
Well.. I tried my best to make it really easy.. not because I thought you needed it to be, but because it would just clarify it. Fine art needs purpose. It's about the subject, NOT the craft skill - although there's no reason why it can't have both. Fine art is meant to be a response to something, and engage the viewer in some kind of debate about the subject it addresses. That's what it is NOW. Art evolves, and does so very quickly. In ten years, ask me the same question, and you'll get a different answer most likely.

This is why anyone who is up to speed with contemporary photography is baffled by amateurs who seem hell bent on living in a temporal bubble and churning out the same stuff decade after decade like some kind of creative ground hog day as if art has not evolved. Like above... posting an Adams image as if it's still RELEVANT!

it's not.

It's lovely. I've seen a real Adams print.. and it's jaw dropping... but producing work like that in the pretence of producing art.. NOW.... would be pointless, because it's no longer relevant. No one is suggesting you shouldn't do it... just don't kid yourself you're producing art. Well... you are... but you're just several decades too late.
 
Pookeyhead said:
It's also old. Art moves on. It a brilliant example of a superb craftsman who I admire greatly. What was art when created, still is art now, but only because we have afforded it a historical context. I'm not suggesting the work of Adams is not anything other than superb, but to keep trying to emulate it NOW like so many amateurs do is never going to result in art. You've missed that boat mate... it sailed at least 60 years ago.
Click to expand...

So, Art is only Contemporary? Hardly can that be the case; as proved by Adams. It's all very well making sweeping statements but people form opinions against which Academia can only throw it's hands up in horror.

I really must find my bed!
 
Pookeyhead said:
Like above... posting an Adams image as if it's still RELEVANT!

it's not.
Click to expand...

Really? I wanted to find a simple definition of Fine Art. That resulted in this, from Wikipedia (not that it is THE de facto definition, there are others). I feel duty bound to point out to them that it's not relevant because it's 60 years old! David said so :(
 
Last edited:
chuckles said:
So, Art is only Contemporary?
Click to expand...

FINE art is, yes. However, as I've said.. twice... What WAS contemporary in it's time, is still art now, but only because we analyse it through the lens of historical contexts: We would never say a Constable is s**t, no... but we would be dismissive of a painter who just made work like Constable NOW.. yes.



chuckles said:
Hardly can that be the case; as proved by Adams. It's all very well making sweeping statements but people form opinions against which Academia can only throw it's hands up in horror.

I really must find my bed!
Click to expand...

You've made no case whatsoever with Adams. What case do yo think you've made? Adams is no longer relevant, other than as a historical milestone in the development of photographic art. You can't take that stuff now and be taken seriously as a contemporary artist... no. How can you be... you're just copying Adams. I'm not being dismissive of his work by the way... I love Adams... looking at Adams' work was one of the things that drew me into this game in the first place. However... Adams' work is art, yes.. but it wouldn't be NOW.

Surely this is a simple concept.
 
chuckles said:
Really? I wanted to find a simple definition of Fine Art. That resulted in this, from Wikipedia (not that it is THE de facto definition, there are others). I really must point out to them that it's not relevant because it's 60 years old! David said so :(
Click to expand...

You're citing Wikipedia? You really wanna do this?

It is not relevant NOW. Why can't you grasp this. I mean... if you, as an artist, produced work that was contemporary 60 years ago, then you're not producing contemporary work really are you.... you're no longer relevant. That's my point... Adams is not relevant NOW... as an artist. He's got great historical significance, and we can learn a lot from him, and indeed do - which is why his work is part of the MOMA collection after all, and people will queue around the block to see it... me included... BUT.... if YOU produced such work NOW... it would not be taken seriously as art. Why should it be?
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
You're citing Wikipedia? You really wanna do this?

It is not relevant NOW. Why can't you grasp this. I mean... if you, as an artist, produced work that was contemporary 60 years ago, then you're not producing contemporary work really are you.... you're no longer relevant. That's my point... Adams is not relevant NOW... as an artist. He's got great historical significance, and we can learn a lot from him, and indeed do - which is why his work is part of the MOMA collection after all, and people will queue around the block to see it... me included... BUT.... if YOU produced such work NOW... it would not be taken seriously as art. Why should it be?
Click to expand...

I cited Wiki because it's a 'yardstick' millions use a quick reference or definition (I know it isn't always accurate) but that's what you're up against. I can accept ideological concepts and I can theorise around them but to accept Fine Art in your world I have to accept it must be Contemporary..... that leads to a conclusion that even my (now) Fine Art is irrelevant say, in two years time. We now have to exorcise the Demon as to what Contemporary is in actuality. Something I really can't bothered with.

Can you now see why people rail against your ideas and opinions? I for one can't care that much but I do see how stubborn opinions, if not suppressed or regulated with a modicum of humility, can lead to dissension.
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
I took the original question as asking the difference between 'fine art' and 'art' in relation to photography rather than asking the big ART question..

I would say that 'fine art photography' is primarily decorative, while 'art' photography is more intellectually based.
Click to expand...

Not sure about that. If you look at the university courses teaching fine art or variants of, then there's a lot of talk about contempory work. I don't think we can limit fine art to just photography, it encompasses all doctrines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top