What is 'Fine Art'?

[TimmyG]

Well I've just ordered some new business cards:

 

[Byker28i]

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

Seriously, take a look at some of the university courses and their end of year work. I popped into baths last year, plus bournemouth, and some of the work I didn't understand, other was thought provoking, interesting and not just photography related.Performance art, sculptures, photography, art, pottery, very interesting to see what's the result of the current teaching.

 

[Byker28i]

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'

Just back from Vegas, he's got two galleries over there that I found. Imagine a large collection of his large images/work.

 

[Byker28i]

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

To be honest even negative views bring something to the discussion. It makes you consider what it is about the subject discussed that maybe the other person doesn't know, hasn't thought about, after all, it's where I was 4 or so years ago before I started studying. As such it then forces me to reinvestigate the things I've learnt, reconsider and try to explain, which ultimately assist my understanding also.

 

[Byker28i]

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.
.

Came across some interesting commercial work of ansel adams I. San Francisco. Seems he did quite a lot to pay for his yosemite work.
To late now, I'm off to bed, but I'll put up the images and details tomorrow.

 

[alexkidd]

It seems to keep falling on deaf ears but anything I have said is related to photography and I go to plenty of end of year shows Falmouth, Kingston, Hull, Blackpool etc off the top of ny head amongst others :/

I don't presume others aren't as informed seems a shame to throw that inference this way as a way of dismissing my opinion :/

 

[Pookeyhead]

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.

Just because you can't be bothered with it, doesn't make what I'm saying untrue... you just don't WANT it to be like that, so you're making up your own meaning to satisfy yourself. Fine... can't stop you... Good luck with getting your "Fine art" accepted as such by anyone who is in a position to display, publish or exhibit it as such then.

As for being up against people who cite Wikipedia... well.. fine, if all you were up against is me. That's not the case. I may be a minority in here, but this is just a little bubble of isolation. Amateur photography ignores the art world, and actively tries to distance itself from it on purpose, just so it can carry on producing the same old tired nonsense for decade after decade, because amateur photographers aren't interested in art at all. They are interested in cameras, and they mimic the work of others, but only when that work has mellowed with age and been accepted into mainstream decorative art. It has no interest in contemporary art, because it simply doesn't LIKE it. It relentlessly churns out it's rule of thirds, golden ration inspired compositions, and it's pleasing aesthetic for no reason whatsoever other than it's easy and required no thought. The same "skills" are passed from generation to generation of amateur photographers. It has STALLED. It's stuck... jumping the same groove of the record, over and over again. I can get a copy of amateur photographer from 1983 and it will have the same bloody image in it - slow shutter speed water falls... grad filtered sunsets.. etc etc.... Nothing changes. It can not be art. It's not relevant. When it DOES strike up something new, it's not put to any effective use... it's just heralded as a new "technique" for others to learn, who obediently do just that, and begin making identical work for no other reason than just doing it.. to prove their skill or get praise from like-minded people for making a cool shot.

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.

It's not a stubborn opinion, it just comforts you to think it is. This is not merely my opinion alone.

Go write a proposal and try get your stuff exhibited in the Blue Coat, or Open Eye gallery, or the photographers gallery in London then. If it's JUST me, then you've nothing to worry about. Put your money where your mouth is. If you feel I'm wrong about contemporary photography, then prove it. Get your stuff exhibited.... go on. I don't mean in the local village hall, or at a local art club. I man in a proper gallery. Not up for that, then how about you try for something more suitable for emerging and new work... go for Lens Culture, Source Magazine, NQ Junkbox web sites etc.. All these are accessible and DEDICATED to showcasing new, grass roots work. THESE are not about art being big business at all. Go create a zine, see if you can get it in Village Books, or perhaps see if you can get some interest at Paris Photo or in Arles... this is what emerging contemporary photographer do. They also self-publish and promote their own material.

Go do any of that. See where you get with the kind of stuff that's popular on here.

You'll sell stuff like that if you market yourself well, but that doesn't make it art either. Pot Noodles sell well too... are they art? Maybe back in Warhol's 60s they may have been lampooned as art, but you've have missed THAT boat too

This is NOT just my opinion, it's what is actually happening. Your ignorance of it does not make your opinion correct merely because you refuse to believe me. Some people still think the world is 10,000 years old, and a man built a great big ship to put all the animals in... they're clearly not right as well, but you try telling them that Don't take my word for it... go engage with "the art world" as you lot like to call it. See what happens... come back and tell us all about it, OK?

So, Art is only Contemporary?

No... you're not listening. All art is art. Adams is art. Constable is art. Monet is art.. Vermeer is art. It's all art. Not once have I said it's not. What I'm saying, is it's no longer relevant. No respected artist will be creating this stuff NOW. It's of it's time, and that time is past, We respect and admire the work for what it is, and value it greatly, but we don't necessarily want all art to still look like that. We admire Beethoven or Lizt, but we no longer want contemporary music to sound like that.. NOW. Sorry for the capitals, but you're clearly having trouble understanding.

Hardly can that be the case; as proved by Adams.

What is it you think you've proved? Adams was of his time. That time has gone. He was born at the turn of the century... a time when Americans were still actually building a country, when vast areas of their land was actually still a wilderness. They portray something that doesn't even exist any more. Adams was quite forward thinking however and was taking images of these places to not only show this "wilderness" but to try and protect it. However, there's no wilderness any more. Seriously... none.. anywhere... so why would a modern photographer portray the land in this way? I'm not saying there's nowhere we need to protect, but why would anyone these days try to create this myth that there's untouched wilderness? For example, why would anyone want to show Cumbria, or the Peak District, or the Scottish highlands as this pristine wilderness of a landscape? It's not. It's a lie. It's sentimental and nostalgic, and no longer relevant as art, We live in a new age... technically, it began when we started farming on an industrial scale. We're in the Anthropocene. This age we're in, really will go down as such... like the Jurassic, or the Triassic... this is the Anthropocene - An age where we as a species now control the surface of our planet, not the other way around. There IS no wilderness. I could go to the ****ing Antarctic tomorrow, and see oil drilling platforms, research stations, towns that have sprung up to support them. I'd see pollution, detritus and all manner of evidence of our interference there. It is not a wilderness. There is no such thing any more. That's gone... you missed the boat. Why then, does anyone want to create work that pretends it is? How is that art? It's just doing what Adams did all those decades ago. However, it's no longer decades ago... it's backwards looking, sentimental crap. It wasn't when Adams was doing it, but it is now. That's not to say that it now makes Adams' work crap, because it doesn't. We appreciate what Adams was doing from a historical context. The work is beautiful... it is art because it was astounding, purposeful work when it was made. However... make that work now, and it will be a pale, irrelevant copy of something from another age. Nice to look at maybe, or hang on the wall... but art has long since stopped being that.

My point is, A It's all very well making sweeping statements but people form opinions against which Academia can only throw it's hands up in horror.

Of course people form opinions that make the informed throw their hands up pin horror. It doesn't make them right though. The Daily Mail does it every day. Does being in the Daily Mail make it true just because millions of people chose to believe it's true?

What IS it with amateur photographers?.. they want to be regarded seriously as artists, but they also want to do so by churning out the same stuff decade after decade and still be taken seriously. It's as if British Leyland were still in business, and still trying to sell us an Austin Allegro, and then moaning about all these upstart foreign cars... shouting, "what's wrong with you all... Buy British", and being absolutely convinced that their cars are market leading, brilliant examples of contemporary engineering, when in reality... Oh.... hang on.... that actually happened LOL Yeah, that ended well didn't it.

The art market is NOT risk averse. It LIKES the new.

When I teach students about famous works and photographers I'm not doing so in order for them to create work like that. I'm doing so in order for them to see how their chosen medium has developed in order for them to know where their work fits NOW. In order to be fresh, new and innovative, you need a good working knowledge of the photographic canon. So when they get the next great "idea" they can measure it against that canon, and see if it's as brilliant an idea as they thought it was... that perhaps they need to work out what Brandt, or Adams would be doing if he was still alive.... NOW.

QED.

The annoying thing is... amateur photography is not a business, and it can't go away when no one buys the wares.... because that was never the intention any way. It just keeps grinding on.

Amateur photographers like cameras and taking pictures. Artists aren't bothered about photography, it's just their chosen medium - they're only ever bothered about the subject their work is dealing with. Professional photographers simply do what is requested of them regardless... or what will sell to the chosen market. That pretty much sums it up.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Came across some interesting commercial work of ansel adams I. San Francisco. Seems he did quite a lot to pay for his yosemite work.

Of course he did. Everyone does. It pays the bills. Despite what some people think, art is not this limitless cash cow where people get rich.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I don't presume others aren't as informed seems a shame to throw that inference this way as a way of dismissing my opinion :/

Maybe this had something to do with it...

I mainly posted to keep my numbers up in the right places

So what did you make of Blackpool's graduate show then?

 

[Byker28i]

Came across some interesting commercial work of ansel adams I. San Francisco. Seems he did quite a lot to pay for his yosemite work.
To late now, I'm off to bed, but I'll put up the images and details tomorrow.

Of course he did. Everyone does. It pays the bills. Despite what some people think, art is not this limitless cash cow where people get rich.

I haven't seen much of his commercial work mentioned, it's always his landscapes, so was fascinated to see some of the extent of his work. Now that would be an interesting exhibition.


I have to do something in the relatively near future to regain the right track in photography. I am literally swamped with “commercial” work — necessary for practical reasons, but very restraining to my creative work. - Ansel Adams

In his gallery at Yosemite, there is a poster hanging in his darkroom with the photographer peeking out from beneath the dark cloth of a view camera that is pointed at a group of school children. The caption below states “Even Ansel Adams had to earn a living.” [

Quite interesting to discover Ansel Adams commercial work in surprising places. In San Francisco in the Westin St Frances hotel, their archivist recently discovered he'd photographed their patent leather bar and orchid room as part of his commercial work.
See:
http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/12/17/06/2683320/6/920x920.jpg
http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/12/17/06/2683321/6/1024x1024.jpg
http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/12/17/06/2683322/6/1024x1024.jpg

Even in Yosemite he was employed for commercial work by the Yosemite Park and Curry Company, which included fully providing an extensive photographic inventory of the Ahwahnee hotel before it was converted to a hospital in WW2.

 

[big soft moose]

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.

 

[big soft moose]

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?

Not necessarily - it depends on what sort of opinion we are talking about , as i said earlier facts can be correct or incorrect - so when discussing whether something did or didn't happen in art history your background has a greater chance of being correct than mine just as it would vice versa if we were discussing countryside conservation (although even experts are wrong sometimes) ,

however if we are discussing something subjective like how art makes us feel , or whether a certain picture moves us every opinion is equally valid , and in fact spending X years studying it could induce bias not found in someone looking at it with fresh eyes

 

[Pookeyhead]

Not necessarily - it depends on what sort of opinion we are talking about , as i said earlier facts can be correct or incorrect - so when discussing whether something did or didn't happen in art history your background has a greater chance of being correct than mine just as it would vice versa if we were discussing countryside conservation (although even experts are wrong sometimes) ,

however if we are discussing something subjective like how art makes us feel , or whether a certain picture moves us every opinion is equally valid , and in fact spending X years studying it could induce bias not found in someone looking at it with fresh eyes

But looking at, and liking something is not, nor has ever been a measure of it's value as art. The general public may trot into the V&A gaze at things because they like them... but it's essentially a museum more than it is a contemporary art gallery. No one, me included is saying that it's not art in there.. it's just that it's not contemporary fine art. It's historical mainly. It's still brilliant... it's still highly valued and respected... but merely emulating it today would NOT make it art. Amateur photographers however, simply make the same things, over and over again, and have always done so. It's stalled.

Same old problem. I like it, so it's art to ME. Fine... but if we all thought that, art would never progress.

 

[Ed Sutton]

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.

Except the OP's original question refers specifically to fine art photography.

Even Pookey is getting confused here and is talking about Art when he says Fine Art. If he'd take a look at the numerous websites calling their photography 'Fine Art Photography' next to none of them show work that fits his definition of Fine Art, they show pretty pictures intended to decorate walls. Do any of the renowned photographers working in teh Art field call themselves Fine Art Photographers'? I doubt it, but the likes of Lik do.

The confusion, I think, arises because people who make Art, the kind of stuff that gets entered for the Turner Prize, usually (not always) have degrees in Fine Art while those who call their work Fine Art rarely do. Proper artists make Art, not Fine Art.

 

[chuckles]

It's of it's time, and that time is past, We respect and admire the work for what it is, and value it greatly, but we don't necessarily want all art to still look like that. We admire Beethoven or Lizt, but we no longer want contemporary music to sound like that.

(Bold added by me)

Try telling that to the masses who bought Bach's "Whiter Shades of Pale", sorry, I mean Procul Harum - that turned out to be in the top 30 of singles ever sold! Many 'Contemporary' musicians/composers have successfully emulated the Old Masters.... not only commercially but also considered as "Art". But, Procul Harum was back in 1967 so it has no relevance in 2015! Sheeesh - and it's me that apparently doesn't understand. Maybe I should resort to capitals to make a point (valid or not).

but if we all thought that, art would never progress

You mean progress to exhibiting a pile of bricks (my father did that every day as a bricklayer - and you could touch his nor did they move), or a dead sheep in a tank formaldehyde! Of course, that's old hat now and has no relevance as that was years ago and yet still discussed and judged (negatively or positively)! Contemporary has yet to be defined by yourself in an Artistic sense. Even these words can be contemporaneously irrelevant as I typed them written minutes ago. So, just when does something become irrelevant due to 'time expiry'?

Sorry, who's having problems with the "Emperor's new clothes"? If Art is considered thought provoking and perhaps controversial why can it not be aesthetically pleasing and palatable to the senses at the same time? Why should it be only artists that appreciate it and not the masses. It looks to me like a very niche, closed arena and you're considered a dumb-ass if you can't see the Art in it from an 'outsider's' perspective.

To extrapolate from everything you've written and opined over are we to conclude that the Old Masters' works were contemporaneously considered as 'crap' (your word) by their Audience/Patrons back in their day? I know that some within The Salon didn't like some others' work but outside of that they were regarded as fine artists! (I'm a bit ignorant of the absolute facts, so I beg a bit of latitude) Wasn't Manet considered to be such that he wasn't permitted to exhibit?

 

[big soft moose]

Sorry, who's having problems with the "Emperor's new clothes"? ?

I'm sorry you aren't allowed to refer to the ENC as that is a dated parable and of no relevance in the modern world - in post modern society you have to refer to as the 'governments new policies' or 'same s*** different wrapper' for that metaphor

this lack of relevance of the past when discussing art must make teaching art history very difficult

 

[Byker28i]

Except the OP's original question refers specifically to fine art photography.

It does, but I thought we'd opened the discussion further into the whole field of fine art in attempting to define it. We can narrow it down to photography, some uni courses I looked at were effectively fine art using photography as a medium courses, but in discussing fine art then if we look at the whole field and areas, then apply that to photography, would that help in answering the question?

Looking at the courses offered by the universities, none offer fine art in photography only. Most say something like:

The programme offers the chance to explore contemporary approaches to fine art across a range of disciplines in a lively and intellectually challenging atmosphere supported by superb quality, easily accessible resource areas in printmaking, painting, photography/digital arts/video and sculpture. In addition to developing visual language skills and confidence with media, learning is also informed by historical and contemporary references, cultural and social contexts, and the requirements of professional practice on graduation.

This is what the future artists/practitioners/curators workers in the field are being taught

 

[big soft moose]

the OED says

fine art
noun
creative art, especially visual art whose products are to be appreciated primarily or solely for their imaginative, aesthetic, or intellectual content."

which actually tracks with David's assertion that art has to mean something

ergo what David defines as 'art' is actually 'fine art' whilst the other forms that many others consider art can in fact be 'art' but not 'fine art' ... or something

 

[Ed Sutton]

It does, but I thought we'd opened the discussion further into the whole field of fine art in attempting to define it. We can narrow it down to photography, some uni courses I looked at were effectively fine art using photography as a medium courses, but in discussing fine art then if we look at the whole field and areas, then apply that to photography, would that help in answering the question?

The point I'm clearly not making very well is that if you are taught Fine Art what you make is Art. This is the root of the confusion, IMO.

You don't hear the likes of Grayson Perry or Tracey Emin talking about making Fine Art, they call what they make Art.

Looking at the courses offered by the universities, none offer fine art in photography only.

Found one! http://www.gsa.ac.uk/study/undergraduate-degrees/fine-art-photography/

 

[big soft moose]

T

You don't hear the likes of Grayson Perry or Tracey Emin talking about making Fine Art, they call what they make Art.
/

i if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and leaves duck s*** everywhere , you don't need a big sign saying 'this is a duck'

 

[Byker28i]

Good find,

I've seen Grayson Perry speak about his work. He never mention he made art, he said he made statements, comments about hypocritical people, injustices, actually felt he was saying it a little tongue in cheek, quite enjoyed it.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Even Pookey is getting confused here and is talking about Art when he says Fine Art.

Nope. Not confused at all. I make no distinction between media. Art is art. Simple as that. What constitutes fine art (photography) is equally valid for any other fine art medium. The medium is just the medium.. Photography, painting, sculpture.. makes no difference whatsoever.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Good find,

I've seen Grayson Perry speak about his work. He never mention he made art, he said he made statements, comments about hypocritical people, injustices, actually felt he was saying it a little tongue in cheek, quite enjoyed it.

Which is what contemporary art does, yes. His work is often tongue in cheek, but many artists don't actually call themselves artists. It's the ones that do you gotta watch out for. Most will just tell you they like to use their chosen medium to discuss stuff.

 

[Pookeyhead]

i if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and leaves duck s*** everywhere , you don't need a big sign saying 'this is a duck'

Ahh.. where would be without the insight Pete brings to the threads

 

[Pookeyhead]

(Bold added by me)

Try telling that to the masses who bought Bach's "Whiter Shades of Pale", sorry, I mean Procul Harum - that turned out to be in the top 30 of singles ever sold! Many 'Contemporary' musicians/composers have successfully emulated the Old Masters.... not only commercially but also considered as "Art". But, Procul Harum was back in 1967 so it has no relevance in 2015! Sheeesh - and it's me that apparently doesn't understand. Maybe I should resort to capitals to make a point (valid or not).

I'm sorry, but Procul Harum did NOT emulate Bach... he pretty much plagiarised it. Pachelbel's Canon is another one regularly ripped off. The fact is... despite whether you feel it's influence of plagiarism... Procul Harum does not SOUND like Bach. It still SOUNDED like it was from 1967... because it was. Play it now, and it sounds like something from the 60s. It is no longer contemporary.. it is now historical.

You mean progress to exhibiting a pile of bricks (my father did that every day as a bricklayer -

Yeah... you're doing the "let's talk about the most challenging and controversial work and pretend it's typical, even though I've no idea what I'm on about" tactic. Fair enough. Contemporary art is not about the skill in the MAKING of the THING. It just isn't. That doesn't mean contemporary art HAS to deliberately avoid it... it's just not all that necessary. Besides, you are talking about installation art here, which is about NOTHING but the concept. You're not meant to admire the actual bricks or the skill with which they've been laid. If you don't understand that, then fine... but you're arguing from a position of ignorance. I'm sure you don't LIKE stuff like that, yeah... but whether you like is is irrelevant. Others do.

Even these words can be contemporaneously irrelevant as I typed them written minutes ago. So, just when does something become irrelevant due to 'time expiry'?

Yes.. absolutely true. In 5 years time, everything written in this thread could very well be utterly redundant. Things change... except the dinosaurs of amateur photography: They just do the same stuff over and over... forever. Which is why most of it is unmitigated crap.

Sorry, who's having problems with the "Emperor's new clothes"? If Art is considered thought provoking and perhaps controversial why can it not be aesthetically pleasing and palatable to the senses at the same time?

Do you not actually read my posts? I said quite plainly that it can be both. LOL

Why should it be only artists that appreciate it and not the masses.

You tell me... you're the one who hates it.

It looks to me like a very niche, closed arena and you're considered a dumb-ass if you can't see the Art in it from an 'outsider's' perspective.

Not at all. However, when you are an outsider who does nothing but slag it off without at least engaging in an intelligent debate, and are at least prepared to have a go, then yes, we'll think you're a dumb ass. The fact is though, you're mind is made up and you're only here to have an argument because you are so convinced it's all a load of elitist crap. You've no intention of trying to understand, nor do you want to.

To extrapolate from everything you've written and opined over are we to conclude that the Old Masters' works were contemporaneously considered as 'crap' (your word) by their Audience/Patrons back in their day?

Err... no... you wonder why I capitalise? I've said the EXACT opposite. You SURE you actually read what I write? I'm sure some were though, but they were the ones who challenged the status quo.

Wasn't Manet considered to be such that he wasn't permitted to exhibit?

Yep... he was one of the ones who challenged the status quo. THEY reacted to Manet exactly as YOU are doing to today's contemporary art He was reviled. He used "unconventional" composition and colours... he... get this for shocking!.... he painted people halfway in/out of the frame... or facing out of the frame!... THE HORROR!!

 

[JulesP]

Looks like I poked a hornets nest with a simple question

 

[Pookeyhead]

Looks like I poked a hornets nest with a simple question

You can't mention the A word in here. Art is a dirty word.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Looks like I poked a hornets nest with a simple question

All it takes is three little letters to get them on the wing.

 

[joxby]

Looks like I poked a hornets nest with a simple question

Nope, for some people as long as there is the opportunity to feign a lack of understanding and use that feint to argue obtuse points for their own entertainment/point scoring, the question simple or otherwise, is irrelevant.

 

[chuckles]

David - thank you for putting so many words into my mouth..... never once have I said the things you assume I did say, you've even managed to ascertain and verbalised my thoughts!

Just for your information, when I first heard Procul Harem's "Whiter Shade of Pale" (I was 14) - my immediate thought was 'that's Bach'. Benefit of a significant musical education!

I bow out of this now knowing full well I'm now castigated as being ignorant, hateful of Art and every other negative thing you've managed to throw at me. You don't even know me let alone even have a clue as to what I'm thinking. I'll leave you to your high-minded attitude, bordering on arrogance. I've often wondered what it's like to be in an Ivory Tower - perhaps you can inform of us that also.

Incontrovertible fact.... I actually like Tracey Emin's "Shed"

 

[chuckles]

Nope, for some people as long as there is the opportunity to feign a lack of understanding and use that feint to argue obtuse points for their own entertainment/point scoring, the question simple or otherwise, is irrelevant.

And some return from a 'suspension' flaying argumentative arms like a Whirling Dervish!

 

[Pookeyhead]

David - thank you for putting so many words into my mouth..... never once have I said the things you assume I did say, you've even managed to ascertain and verbalised my thoughts!

Yeah... it's a skill I picked up somewhere

Just for your information, when I first heard Procul Harem's "Whiter Shade of Pale" (I was 14) - my immediate thought was 'that's Bach'. Benefit of a significant musical education!

You recognised the melody, sure. It does NOT sound like Bach though... LOL

Incontrovertible fact.... I actually like Tracey Emin's "Shed"

There's hope yet then.

 

[Pookeyhead]

And some return from a 'suspension' flaying argumentative arms like a Whirling Dervish!

Being suspended from here has had absolutely no impact upon how I will conduct myself. It's just a forum. If it's available, I enjoy using it, but if not, I'll not miss it.. I have a full and busy life off here.

 

[Paulie-W]

That really is good image, you should definitely take that over to the 'fine art photography thread' as a good example !

Well, as suggested. Here it is.

Into the Trees by Paulie-W, on Flickr

 

[Pookeyhead]

Why is that a good example of fine art? I quite like it actually, but as discussed, that doesn't make it art. Can you explain why you made this image and what it's intention is?

 

[Paulie-W]

Why is that a good example of fine art? I quite like it actually, but as discussed, that doesn't make it art. Can you explain why you made this image and what it's intention is?

The first question can be answered by Blank_Canvas ... I put it up in the D750 thread, and as per quote he suggested I put it here too.

As for why I made it. I just like ICM and trees. I find it pleasing on the eye.

 

[Furtim]

What I'm taking from the debate is that concepts are context specific. "Fine Art" as a concept has a meaning that is dependant on both time and audience. What was considered 'Fine Art" in the context of @Pookeyhead 's academic definition (which I accept) 300 years ago, would not be considered the same if it was produced today. Similarly with work produced 200 years ago, 50 years ago etc.

However, the term perpetuates, and is used widely to refer to such works in the wider context (ie. outside of those who are currently engaged in the study / discussion of what is Fine Art today).

So it is perhaps fairly inevitable that we have competing view points. More generally - works that have stood the test of time, survived and drawn audiences for the past 300+ years are "known" as Fine Art by the majority, and works that 'do something' fall into the definition of contemporary fine art for those who are currently defining the movement at the moment (the artists and the academics).

Only time will tell whether the current examples of fine art will perpetuate and be considered as historically relevant in 100 years.

 

[Pookeyhead]

What I'm taking from the debate is that concepts are context specific. "Fine Art" as a concept has a meaning that is dependant on both time and audience. What was considered 'Fine Art" in the context of @Pookeyhead 's academic definition (which I accept) 300 years ago, would not be considered the same if it was produced today. Similarly with work produced 200 years ago, 50 years ago etc.

That's pretty much how art is defined these days, yes. It's in constant flux as people seek to challenge accepted forms of art. It's the only way it can progress, evolve and remain challenging. If that doesn't happen, then the whole thing grinds to a halt, and we just start to accept the same things over and over again. There are trends and fashions, just like in any arena, whether it be fashion, film making, sculpture, poetry... in fact, one of the latest things artist are experimenting with is "new formalism" which was actually borrowed from poetry. That's not to say everyone must be experimenting with new formalism, but these things happen to create a platform to challenge accepted wisdom. Like science, artists and the art world LIKE being challenged... it creates new ideas. In here though, no one is challenging it... it just gets called S**t. LOL.

However, the term perpetuates, and is used widely to refer to such works in the wider context (ie. outside of those who are currently engaged in the study / discussion of what is Fine Art today)



So it is perhaps fairly inevitable that we have competing view points. More generally - works that have stood the test of time, survived and drawn audiences for the past 300+ years are "known" as Fine Art by the majority, and works that 'do something' fall into the definition of contemporary fine art for those who are currently defining the movement at the moment (the artists and the academics).

Hmmm..... the problem there is, that these stoic, well known examples of art that are old, DID do something at the time. We just don't appreciate it in the same way because what was new and radical at the time is now commonplace. Earlier on, someone mentioned Manet as an example. He was radical at the time. Seriously, the traditionalists of the time were outraged, yet the new artists of the time were excited. All he did was use colours in a different way to create mood (instead of being accurate) and used the frame of the image in a different way. He places people right at the edge, or did things like have a cart or carriage, or person half way in/out of the frame... trying to capture that sense of periphery we get with the human eye. All of a sudden, the frame itself became an active part of the composition. It was radical! Now we wouldn't bat an eyelid... except in here of course, where something half in/out would be flagged up in what passes for crit in here... which is my point: Amateur photography is just not even trying to be progressive. It LIKES being stuck in the past. It's comfortable. It has rules, and rules are comforting: They provide an easily attainable measure of "good" or "bad". It requires less thought and imagination. You get clear lines of demarcation that anyone can access and understand. It's not academic at all. It's purely technical. This is why it's very rarely art because art IS an academic endeavour as equally as a technical/craft exercise.. or should be any way.

Only time will tell whether the current examples of fine art will perpetuate and be considered as historically relevant in 100 years.

They almost certainly will, but all this outrage and "My kid could have done that" nonsense will die away as time mellows out the sharp edges of controversy.

As for why I made it. I just like ICM and trees. I find it pleasing on the eye.

Which is why it is not fine art. I'm not slagging the image off... I like it. I'd actually hang something like that on the wall. However, that's not a measure of it's worthiness as contemporary fine art. It's great decorative art though. The fact is, you took it without any idea of what you were doing, and you like it, but have no other explanation as to what the work is doing... what it's for. Of course, this always prompts the reply "Why does it have to DO anything?". Because contemporary fine art should be doing that. It's what stops it being something merely nice to look at, and makes it becomes something thought provoking - something that makes me re-evaluate, or adjust, or even just think. This is why art education is vital for visually creative people. If you understood WHY you like it, or how it affects you, and others, it may have sent you off in a wholly different direction to explore those thoughts and feelings and a whole body of work may have been produced. As it is.. and always is with amateur photography, you've got a "keeper" and it's uploaded to Flickr, and you move on, and this disparate collection of random images builds.

Yes... I'm being slightly unfair here... it is actually a really nice image. I do genuinely like it. It DOES actually challenge me a little. I like the way the trunks seems to be floating in mid-air over what appears to be concrete. That has many connotations and could be analogous of many things... but what's missing here is that confirmation.. that dialogue between artist and audience.

 

[Paulie-W]

Which is why it is not fine art. I'm not slagging the image off... I like it. I'd actually hang something like that on the wall. However, that's not a measure of it's worthiness as contemporary fine art. It's great decorative art though.

Fair shout. I have no clue as to what is and what isn`t Fine Art.
Thank you re "Decorative Art" though

 

[Steve Smith]

I haven't seen much of his commercial work mentioned, it's always his landscapes, so was fascinated to see some of the extent of his work.

One of my favourite photographers is John Gay. His book, England Observed, mainly shows rural and small town life in England from the 1940s to the 1960s but there are also some product advertising images in there which he did in order to make a bit of money, perhaps when sales of his normal work were not as high as he hoped. A total contrast to his normal style but still well executed.


Steve.