What is a fine art photograph?

Msmoto

I am wondering about "fine art photography" and will discuss this with the original thread author. Somehow in my head are the images of the masters, the technical quality which is typical of the large format portraits of the first 70 years of the 20th Century. And, i think I know how to do this....

spraynpray

When a dead cow with it's guts on show can make it to a national gallery, I am not sure I even want to have anything to do with 'art'. :-?

rmp

First, please understand that 90%+ of my photos are family snap shots. Always have been, always will be.

That said, when I restarted my intrest in photography, I wanted to take a picture that was/is so good that a stanger would want to hang it on the wall in their home: Not because they have been there and seen that, Not because the subject is someone they know, Not because of who took it or painted it, but just because it is so appealing they like to look at it. That goal lead me to this definition:

“A fine art photograph is a photograph that
invokes an emotion in the viewer
and shows mastery of every step in the creative process.”

I thought that would be "fine" art. Maybe a better title would be "wall" art?

Gitzo

This is a lot like the endless debate over "what IS an antique"; my wife was in the antique business when I first met her, and for about 5 or 6 years we worked at it together; after spending a lot of time in an "antique shop", and watching what people will buy, I think I can safely say, the definition of "what constitutes an antique" must be considerably different today, than it was in the past. I think "antique buyers" are a lot like lemmings; ( they mostly appear to be following the lemming right in front of them ); now, whether or not they would jump off of a cliff and into the sea, ( like real lemmings are known to do ), I'm not really sure, but I suspect that some might !

I had more customers ask me, "exactly what IS an antique"? My standard answer was always, "anything you buy in this antique shop is, the minute you pay for it. an antique, and you can take it home, display it on a table, and tell anyone who asks, "this is an antique"! It almost always seemed to be all the explanation they needed. Being a woodworker for years, we always had two dozen people every day wanting to know "what kind of wood is this made out of" ? For a long time I would tell them, "oh, this is black cherry", or that's walnut, or this table is maple.........One day the owner of the shop noticed me doing this, and he said to me, " next time anyone asks, just tell them it's "tree wood" ! I tried it, and it "worked" just as well !

I'll never forget one lady.......she asked me, " excuse me sir, but could you tell me what the difference is between "junk" and "Junque" ? I smiled (and with a straight face) replied, "oh, Junque is what you find in "Antique Shops" and it usually costs much more." It was all she needed; she thanked me and spent several hundred dollars !

I think the "fine art" market must be a whole lot like this.

spraynpray

@Gitzo: LOL! I think that a lot of the members of this forum fit into the category of antiques too. A few of the PADs could make wall art, and nearly all would make Walmart!

Msmoto

OK, having just pulled out my copy of "Richard Avedon Portraits" I am going to say, these are IMO a collection of the finest portraits ever. But, not too many folks will want these on their wall. Anyone can look at a copy of this series and understand.

Richard Avedon was my "hero" when I was getting into the field in the 1960's. I was in New York in 1965 and interviewed but was too stupid to say, "I will shine your shoes if you want, just please hire me."

donaldejose

I have often wondered why portraits which are not attractive are taken by great artists. When I try to take portraits of people without a happy expression they are just unattractive images of people. I guess the difference is "soul" or "personality" or the photo being about to capture something of the person't "inner self." If you know the subject artist's work, such as Salvador Dali for example, you can see how Avedon's portrait of Dali mimics Dali's work in a sort of "self-portrait" way that Dali would have painted a portrait of himself. In that way the portrait is true to the artist. But a lot of Avedon's portraits just seem to show people who are sad or alienated to me although I do admire the creativity of his composition and poses. Perhaps my ability to connect with other people or to sense the greatness in these images is affected by my own personality disorder.

spraynpray: most PAD images more Walmart than wall art? Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. Only occasionally is some image posted which is "art." Most are just "snapshots." I have tried to expand the normal boundaries of PAD by posting more unique things but have not been successful myself. "Knock your socks off" images (in the sense of dramatic lighting, seeing something in a new way, using a new technique or I haven't seen that type of image a thousand times before) are rare on PAD. Most of the time we are trying to reproduce things which we have seen others do. Creativity on PAD is rare. I suggest that is because few, if any, of us here are great artists (including you and me). If I am wrong about you spraynpray please post your great creative images on PAD. We all would like to see them. So we have to be content to produce technically good photos of mundane subjects seen in mundane ways. But none of use should give up and stop trying. Genius may strike us unexpectedly if we keep trying hard enough and long enough! As to a dead cow with is guts on display; I ran across this rather rare scene of a bird proudly defending its food supply and tried to make an interesting photo out of it but fear I have produced nothing but "ick." Yes, the photo evokes an emotion but is "ick" an emotion which art should evoke?

spraynpray

@Donald - LOL! BTW - I definitely don't exclude my postings from the Walmart category!

donaldejose

Some examples of more interesting PAD postings which demonstrate "outside the box" or original thinking are these:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/8513302535/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/witty_nickname/8474278325/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/8402949061/

rmp

In looking over http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/8404041196/in/photostream/
I think the photo of the barff green auto is better looking than the actual car. But, I still would not want to hang it on my wall.

rmp

When I posted my comment earlier today, I was wondering about how to terminate this thread, Now there are quite a few new post. In addition, the conversation is drifting toward examples Including some example jokes. Maybe we should stop this thread and start a new one with proposed examples of fine art photographs. What do you think?

Msmoto

Come now...in the late 40's early 50's, this was a popular color....and the image is very close to the exact color...oh, I think I am getting sick....

I do not think I shoot "fine art photos" in general as my goal is to recored everyday life. If someone can look at my image and imagine there are present in the photo....that is about all I am seeking.

donaldejose

I think few of us here practice "fine art" photography. MsMoto your Family of Man portraits might qualify. They are interesting and I could see an exhibit with some brief description of the subjects. How about a "match um up" exhibit? 20 photos and 20 brief resumes but the resume is not posted under or next to the photo, just printed on one sheet of paper and the viewer has to see if he can figure out which photo is the person in each resume.

I would like to be able to do more than make snapshots or record everyday life. I would like to make extraordinary images of ordinary subjects seen in ways people don't normally see them and showing beauty in subjects people don't normally see in them.

rmp

After browsing through the photo-a-day pictures, a few more of MsMoto's pictures, and a few dozen wesites, I I see a few pictures I would classify as fine art. So, I agree with donaldejose.

Lets start a fine art photograph display. First, lets make up the rules that apply to selection of the photographs. Here is a first draft of the rules for entrance.

1. A fine art photograph must invoke an emotion in the viewer.
2. A fine art photograph must show mastery of every step in the creative process.
3. A "proposed fine art photograph" may be submitted by any NF member.
4. A proposed fine art photograph may be calssified as a Fine Art Photographonly after it is balloted by at least 5 members as fine art.
5. The identity of the photographer must be held secret until after the photograph is selected.

Please consider these rules as a first draft. I do not know what I am doing in making up these rules so i need a lot of help. I do believe we are wondering off in the right direction, but these waters are uncharted. So all comments are appreciated.

donaldejose

I like the idea of trying to identify some photos as fine art. However, it may be hard to get people to submit entries because they don't want to be criticized. I think critical discussion of photos (not mean spirited though) is very instructive but when threads have been started to do so few people have been willing to submit a photo for discussion. Rather than have people submit their own photos perhaps a member could "nominate" a photo posted on PAD as a fine art photo? If a nominated photo gets enough votes or nominations it would then be posted in NR fine art gallery. This way everyone can post on PAD without anyone being a looser. All PAD posts are winners. A few are just elevated beyond winner to the fine art gallery. No NF member submits their own photo to the fine art gallery and is rejected. You could also have a group of judges who select photos from PAD and post them in a fine art gallery. Of course, some people will criticize the judges as being subjective and not accurate but this is a possibility anytime you have judges. Votes can be criticized as being a popularity contest. So whatever mechanism you use is subject to some criticism. When people submit a photo and it is voted upon without knowledge of who submitted it that avoids the popularity contest aspect. Many different mechanisms could work. I think it would be good to have some way to encourage all of us to "up our game."

Look at these images. Quite creative. http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/02/26/haunting-black-and-white-self-portraits-by-young-hungarian-artist-mesmerize

rmp

I like it. Good suggestions donaldejose. Here is my intpretation of your proposed rules.

1. A fine art photograph must invoke an emotion in the viewer.
2. A fine art photograph must show mastery of every step in the creative process.
3. A "nominated fine art photograph" may be nominated by any NF member. The nominated photo must be on-line and easily acessable such as Poto-A-Day photos.
4. A nominated fine art photograph is calssified as a Fine Art Photographonly only after it is balloted by at least ten members as fine art.

Do you think we need a special panel of judges in addition to the 10 members?

Should we limit the total number of FAPs to, say 10. Then when a new one is added, an old one must be retired?

MsMoto, about now you should be getting worried, this probably means more work for you.

donaldejose

The mods will make the final decision as to whether or not such a fine art thread exists. I wouldn't limit it to 10 photos. It can be as long as one month's PAD photos or longer. I don't know how I would define it. I wouldn't say it has to show mastery of every step in the creative process. I wouldn't even say it has to evoke an emotion in the viewer. It just has to be visually interesting, something you are drawn to. There should be a selection process but I don't know if NR software allows for voting. Since NR allows for posting you could vote by making a post. So there could be a thread of nominees without the photographer identified (other than he/she must be a member of NR) and any that get 20 posts of a + could be moved to the thread of fine art or great photos. It could be as simple as two threads. The first one, the nominees, you cannot post your own photos, you can only nominate someone else. When a nominated photo gets enough votes it could be moved to the final fine art or great photo thread and remain there for many years: sort of "The best of PAD" thread. These are just ideas. It is up to the mods to determine what could be done and what they would want to do.

rmp

At least one other site has a photo nomination process. http://nikongear.com/live/index.php?/gallery/image/3376-potw-329-fons-baerken-birch-on-heather/

The pictures are good. But few of them rise to the level I would call fine art. maybe i am just asking for too much.

donaldejose

The idea of a "fine art" or "best of PAD" gallery is not a denigration of PAD. It is more of a select "super-PAD" to recognize excellence.

earthsea

Remember fine art is the application, photography is only the medium.
Take a famous painting we all know off like the Mona Lisa. That is fine art.
Is a reproduction of this painting fine art?... Same image.
Is it the image that is fine art or the peice its self? This then could make any more than one photo print of an image a counterfeit!
If you like to listen to good pub philosophy, then grab yourself a beer and listen to this. A good clean, fun debate on the subject.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01lsyrh

donaldejose

Worth listening to.

What is an original print from a digital file? You have the file and make 10 limited edition prints. Are those 10 originals? Do you have to destroy the digital file to make the prints the originals? If you keep the file and print it differently 10 more times do you now have 20 originals or do you have 10 originals and 10 more originals of something else? It seems to me only the prime source document is the original. Only the digital file is the original. All others are copies of an original. If that is true than no photographer can sell original prints because that original is the negative, the slide or the digital file. Photographers can only sell prints made by (or under the supervision of) the original artist. The originals always stay on our hard drives or on memory cards.

earthsea

donadejose, I couldn't agree with you more.
It would be interesting to know what this guy has to say about the subject, he sold this photo for $4.3 million. http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/11/11/and-heres-the-most-expensive-photograph-in-the-world/

rmp, With regard to your idea, surely a fine art piece would have to created first outside this forum then a reproduction of that work could be displayed?

donaldejose

I think the value of this discussion of producing art lies in its encouragement to each of us to strive for more art in our photos. I had an idea, tried it with about 10 shots tonight, looked at them on the computer and deleted them all! It just didn't produce the effect I was trying for. Back to the drawing board, maybe try it a different way tomorrow. Having a vision of something and trying to make the camera produce that image already in your head is more like a painter putting paint on a blank canvas to produce what he already sees in his head. contrast that with us seeing something, lifting the camera to frame it, clicking the shutter and capturing a moment in time.

rmp

earthsea, I agree that a reproduction is all we would ever see on the web, here or any website. The Rhein II is an example: On the web it looks very plain and unintresting. I hope it looks a lot better on the back of the glass where it was printed, especailly selling at that price.

I just completed a photo-club presentation on reviewing (i.e. critiquing) a photo and I used as examples for critique several photos that sold at auction for very high prices. I did not use Rhein II because it was rejected by my early review team as too inconsequential.

Using a camera to produce a snap-shot or capturing a moment in time is very different from producing a fine art photograph. The visualization, planning, setup, post-processing, printing, framinmg, and displaying will be very different in the two different uses. The actual capturing step may be the same, but all the other work will likely be different.

birdman

This is crazy; I never noticed this thread before. yeah, I bought some used gear from a photographer from luminous-landscape.com. We talked over the phone and he stated that he was quite successful in fine-art photog, setting up exhibits and work shops. I was too embarrassed to ask "What the hell is fine-art photog?"

Here's his site: http://www.bellimages.com/ Nice guy, but I'll take exception because he shoots all Canon.