What is a fine art photograph?

PB_PM

Some of the "fine art" photography I've seen was more Photoshop drawings, with bits and pieces of images pasted in.

heartyfisher

@ rmp...Bob, I like this definition....creates an emotional response, technically well done. I might even have a couple of these.

Sadly I don't think I have even one.. I only take snaps with my DX kit lense ... but i have had fun..

Golf007sd

Hi all,

@Golf007sd I've been an editor and teacher of writing/journalism/photography for eons. I've made more missstakes than you have yearsss.

My test.

Mike

I see it...my test to you as well. :P

mirtos

I like this definition from Wikipedia.

Fine Art: visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture."[2]
The word "fine" does not so much denote the quality of the artwork in question, but the purity of the discipline. This definition tends to exclude visual art forms that could be considered craftwork or applied art, such as textiles. The visual arts has been described as a more inclusive and descriptive phrase for current art practice. Also, today there is an escalation of media in which high art is more recognized to occur.
The term is still often used outside of the arts to denote when someone has perfected an activity to a very high level of skill. For example, one might metaphorically say that "Pelé took football to the level of a fine art."


Thus while "experts" (and i quote the term, because there really is no such thing), will disagree WHICH art is fine art, i think its safe to say that finae art photography is photos taken for the purpose of the photo, and not else. Thus i beleive it is certainly possible for wildlife shots or scenerey shots to be fine art, but only if they evoke a reaction. Whether it is appreciated is another story, but it seems to me that fine art photography (by my above definition) is as much about the intent of the photographer as it is about the viewer of the piece.

sevencrossing

David Lloyd a Wild life Photographer describes his work as "fine art" and looking at website I think I would agree with him

Msmoto

I think the issues we area facing in attempting to define this in the thread is exactly what Bob is getting to. Presently, there is no consistent way to apply this label.

Maybe, if folks could just list three criteria one uses to determine in your own mind what you see as Fine Art Photography, this would get us closer to a consensus.

bjrichus

FX: Coughs quietly in the wings, before stepping into the fray....

As someone who trained as a Fine Artist (for the old British DipAD degree in the 1970's), and who is active in the Fine Art world as a photographer, let me stir the pot (or prod the hornets nest) a bit.

This question is one of the most central to the arts in general as well as being one of the oldest: "What IS art"?

Lets leave the camera out of this for a moment...

My view:

A work of fine art is primarily produced with the objective of producing a response from the viewer, either or both emotional or intellectually with commercial objectives secondary.

Now lets introduce the camera ...

That we use cameras as the means of production is what unites us, not remarks of personal preference about what one individual may delete or think is bad; that simply illustrates a particular view and does not communicate any degree of understanding. I'm being diplomatic about it, but art has always generated comments and responses both pro and anti. Nothing new or original there and in fact, many feel that if art does NOT generate a strong response it isn't somehow doing it's job.

Just enjoy what you like and ignore what you don't.

sevencrossing

I quite like the Wikipedia definition
does the new forum software have a "like" button

bjrichus

Some of the "fine art" photography I've seen was more Photoshop drawings, with bits and pieces of images pasted in.

That is a particular style of producing an image that was/is popular in some circles.

bjrichus

I quite like the Wikipedia definition
does the new forum software have a "like" button

Yes, the little +1 ........

sevencrossing 7:39AM QuoteFlag+1 -1

Rifqi

This might be of interest to this discussion: http://shadenproductions.com/blog/2012/10/09/what-in-the-world-is-a-fine-art-photographer/

Straight from the horse's mouth.

MikeGunter

Hi all,

I use to work at a daily where I was budgeted to produce content to fill one page of newsprint per day (words and photos).

Sometimes my editor felt he had a life and wasn't around at 2 am when the paper when to bed (there were layered deadlines for segments - this was pre-offset printing). So, if my news day was thin, I would left unsupervised to shoot a photo, develop and print it and take it to the engraver and ask if it was good for the next day's edition.

The first time and every time afterwards he said, "Ah, yeah, sure."

The engraver knew that the paper would line parakeet cages and cat boxes and be used for training puppies.

There were comments, good and bad, from the readers in the "Letters to the Editor" where I got my feedback, and that feedback was moderated by my best mentor, the editor of that paper.

My point is, I'm not too sure I'd worry or fret over definitions, yours or mine or anyone's, but to take good exposures, and remember that your worth comes from what you give more than from what you get.

My best,

Mike

Msmoto

Mike, I think you have nailed it. "your worth comes from what you give more than from what you get"

rmp

I think we are getting close. A fine art photo is like any other item of fine art. It is technically masterful
and it is emotionally involving. I think this sort of definition excludes the photographers pleasure or passion in the creative process and focuses on the item that was created.

[Deleted User]

I'm incredibly fortunate that my income doesn't come from photography and as such I have fantastic freedom in what I take and what I consider good or bad in a photograph.

I'm really happy/satisfied with some of my photographs (not a lot!) for various reasons - I managed to capture what I'd intended, there was no need for any tweaks in post processing, the composition was great, the lighting was perfect etc. - and frankly I couldn't give a monkeys if it is or isn't considered 'fine art' - if I (or someone else) is happy to put it on a wall, for me the magic has worked.

Msmoto

Photographs are largely affected by the personality of the photographer. The projection of one's personality is quite often the defining characteristic. If one looks at the masters of the past years, Avedon is one,, Scavullo is another we see this clearly. In 1965 I had a couple hours to chat with Scavullo in New York. His excitement and passion was so obvious in our discussion. And it is this which is shown in photographs. While this is especially true in the photography of people, the landscape artist will also have this come through in the content and presentation. I think it is in the details.

While good equipment is very helpful, the camera will not take the photo, nor process the image.

To Darksldie: Interesting about the tweaks in post. I was brought up in the atmosphere of having the photos "camera ready" and this involved a lot of tweaks in the print making. Even with transparency material, we tweaked with color balance filters specific for each emulsion run. For me, I capture my "negative" in the camera and make the print to follow. In using available light almost exclusively, I have to tweak a lot. Especially true with multiple mixed light sources.

But, we are all coming from a different direction and no one perspective is either correct or not.

rmp

Hi darkside,
Most of the time I agree with you. 90% or more of my photos are family snapshots or travel snapshots. They capture a memory and that is what I intended. Still, once in a while I would like to create a piece of wall art that is art for arts sake - not just a snapshot. If I can define a "fine art photograph" maybe I can create one -- when I want to. And "art" to me goes beyond being technically great.

[Deleted User]

If I can define a "fine art photograph" maybe I can create one -- when I want to. And "art" to me goes beyond being technically great.

I couldn't agree more - the technical side of things, for me at least, is by way the least important. I organise an annual photo competition in our town - and frankly quality is the last thing a photo is judged on - if the person has managed to capture a moment, it really doesn't matter if it's not blinding well exposed, in focus etc.

Butgoing back to your comment " If I can define a "fine art photograph" maybe I can create one " I think we'd all like to know the exact definition (hence this post...) but I also don't think we'll ever get something that everyone agrees on - but such is art! (And taste etc.)

warprints

Fine Art is most of those "whoops" photos I take when I accidently trigger my camera when it's pointed somewhere other than where I would normally intend to point it. I am a purist, so I generally delete all those Fine Art photos.

Golf007sd

Here is an interesting read that may add to this topic.

safyre

I've always viewed fine art photography as stuff that is trying to emulate things you would see in an art museum.

But lets just call it what it really is, which is good marketing. I've seen plenty of "fine art" photos that really make me question the future of photography.

[Deleted User]

Here is an interesting read that may add to this topic.

Indeed an interesting article - and (for me at least) a perfect demonstration of people completely missing the point.

What possible difference does it make that the animal was in a zoo? Isn't the point of all this the image? I'm really sorry for the 'purists' but at the end of the day, the final image is what's important to me - not the 'justifications' of authenticity.

Golf007sd

@darkslide I agree

rmp

It seems to me that "The best photograph," "The best wildlife photograph," and "The best animal photograph" could be different categories. I guess it just depends upon the rules of the contest. And I guess that was the point -- what are the "rules of the contest" for a "fine art photograph?"

So, does "no rules" mean no way to define?

rschnaible

Looking at fine art exhibitions, it seems to be the sort of stuff in my in my deleted folder