A while back we had a thread on what is a "fine art" photograph. There were many responses and many+1 definitions of what a fine art photograph is or was. At the end of that thread I came away with the following 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"
- See more at: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/170/what-is-a-fine-art-photograph/p1#sthash.SOPlKqVl.dpuf
Now, I have a new request. Please post or send a link to an example of a photograph that - in your opinion
- rises to the level of being a fine art photograph.
Robert M. Poston: D4, D810, V3, 14-24 F2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 80-400, 105 macro.
|SB-800, Amaran Halo LED Ring light | MB-D16 grip| Gitzo GT3541 + RRS BH-55LR, Gitzo GM2942 + Sirui L-10 | RRS gear | Lowepro, ThinkTank, & Hoodman gear | BosStrap | Vello Freewave Plus wireless Remote, Leica Lens Cleaning Cloth |
Keep them coming!
Medieval monks argued how many angels could dance on the head of a needle, about as fruitful defining art photographs.
Better to look at your histogram to ensure that you have a good exposure, make sure that you don't confuse your audience with images, that for the lack of language, don't make sense, and in the end, just take a lot of pictures - that is to say, practice a lot.
Work only on the science of the art. Good colormetery, contrast, composition, light control, shutter mastery, aperture, depth of field control, focal understanding, and much more. That's the only damn thing you can work on and improve upon.
Trying to come up with a neat bundle of word salad that includes 'emotion' and other crap that has stuff in that is in some how akin to the human spirit is pure BS.
By the way, I believe composition bridges the gap between technical excellence and emotional communication. But, that is just one fools opinion.
Best regards, Bob
@ rmp, Don't take the wrath of my post personally - I've been a teacher of photography as 'art' for years - since the flower power decade. ;-)
I've known several greats, near greats and those who thought they were great. The greats had one thing in common. They didn't dwell on emotion, evocative talk about their work, or such, but instead worked in the camera, the negative, and the darkroom.
They produced results, concerning themselves with process instead of emotions.
Chief among them was Ansel Adams. His books are all process. You'd look at his work and likely think all 'emotion'. I talked with him and never did he mention 'emotion'. It was always process.
Process is always important, far more important that any emotion. You are a creator using a tool that is a scientific instrument - akin to a surgeon - would you like a emotional teenager doing your heart transplant? It makes no sense.
Technical art first requires competent mastery of the tools of the art.
Compassion, wisdom and seeing the human condition are an aside of the art itself.
Sorry, bad joke...
And I know photos that are fine art, but do not necessarily trigger emotions. Overall I think it is always in the eye of each individual. Here is one of my favs:
I don't do landscapes but this guy I think really does some special work and I consider it "fine art"
@ Benji2505 Eddie Adams was a contemporary of mine in Vietnam. I was working in the US Army as a photographer and briefly met him and Larry Burrows - who I was (and remain) in awe of and was sadden by his death many years ago. Neither would have remembered me.
Reporting by it's nature - telling a story that is important and relevant - will shake us up. It will stir our blood, change how we feel about an issue. That's what news is or should be. Shooting a handcuffed prisoner in the head help to change the outlook of the perception of the War in Vietnam. It was a seminal photograph of the war. (Even if the facts behind the photo are somewhat blurry.)
The greater point - the one that I don't want to get lost in the din of emotional intent - is that anyone that hunts for emotion is destined to find failure.
You can only hone your skill. At the end of the day, that's all you have, nothing more.
"They tried so hard to be different they forgot to be good"
Mike has summarized the process well with his comment on angels dancing on the head of a pin. However, what I suggest may be the real meaning behind all the discussion on "Fine Art Photography" is to create human interactions which, if our attitude is correct, may allow us to have an enjoyable discussion but also to potentially learn something in the process. At least that is what my intentions are.
A mood ?
But the examples -- they make it real. Ton's "mood," Benji2505's stair case, and JonMcGuffin's landscape are examples that rise to the level of "fine art" in this fools opinion.
My daughter and niece beat me into the definition of a fine art photograph that I am now using. I started with a definition that included "shows mastery of every step in the creative process" - Then the two of them pointed out some of my photos that were technically perfect and boring as dirt. So I was forced to expand the definition with something about emotion or message.
Please keep the examples coming! I would like to build a list of examples so links or references are really appreciated.
Then I have another thing. I print some photo's I like A4 format, frame them and put them next to me on the wall. Then strange things happens and are different every time. Some photo's does not last a day and some become better and better, for me of course.
The things I like most in your photo's, you bring a mood in them.
Has - mood - a rôle in this - fine-art - thing?
In some cases, mood is the primary message.
This is the worst photo from a trip to Costa Rica. It is also the one I like best because it captures the mood of the entire trip.
From the forum rules.