FINE ART PHOTOGRAPHY?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo: Creativity, Etc. : One Thread

I am unclear on what is considered fine art photography. I have seen a lot of fine art photography sites and they seem to include the usual categories (landscape, portraiture, etc.). Is there a definition of fine art photography?

-- Steven (SAGJRNY@HOTMAIL.COM), February 11, 1999

Answers

Personally, I do not believe in categorizing the different genres of photography. Sometimes the genres mix. For example, a fine art photo might contain elements of architectural photography, but does it really make a difference what kind of photo it is? I suppose that's a matter of opinion. My answer is no, as long as it looks good and serves the photographer's purpose.

-- Rose S. (SweetiRS@hotmail.com), February 11, 1999.

I guess your question also would require defining "what is an artist?" Artists produce art, of better or lesser sorts. I suspect that an artist is someone who pursues a practice (artspeak for a trade, craft, skill, etc) with a desire to either express some concept (concern, cultural query, insight, etc), or demonstrate a level of skill in production that renders the finished product a thing of beauty (regardless of the content, and where a product can sometimes be a concept rather than a thing), or some combination of both.

Despite public trumpeting by various art critics that "photography is art" I suspect that many photographers (myself included) are still unconvinced that art is photography. Certainly photography can be art, but I suspect that photography offers challenges beyond "mere" art as a result of both its inherent production aspects, and because of our cultural preconceptions about images, our "visual literacy", or illiteracy in most cases.

More practically, in the marketplace, fine art photography is usually a photograph produced by a career photographer/artist, printed on an archival paper, framed archivally, and represented (sold) by a dealer or gallery who are knowledgeable about photography as a medium and as an art investment. Limited numbers of prints are usual, the dealer often being given the "cancelled" negative (a hole punched through it) to guarantee that no more prints will be made from that neg.

Fine art photography (like any fine art object) is usually bought by investor/collectors who are looking for artists who have a significant body of work behind them, and will continue to produce. They are not looking for someone who makes the occassional good image (no matter how good it is). The value of art is dependent on the ability of critics and curators (and dealers) to frame its significance in a "dialogue" pertaining to a practice or art history. Sadly, a great deal of the elements in the fine art world are bullsh*t, and don't allow for photographers who's motivation lies outside the realm of "contemporary art" (or post-modernism, etc).

Anyway, sort of an answer. WA

-- Will Ashbless (ashbless@geocities.com), February 22, 1999.


Hi! My definition is any photographicly produced image (e.g. produced *by the agency of light*), which when looked at, causes some lasting emotional and/or intellectual resonance in viewers who do not personally know the photographer. In addition, it does not require any explanation, other than its presence to have this effect. In the context of the Fine Art Biz, It can have quite a different and less tangible meaning, and just who the photographer happens to know can become more important than the work itself. Well, Thanks for the oppertunity to get that off the old chest. Ciao

-- David Dutchison (ddutt@vcn.bc.ca), February 24, 1999.

-Santiago, March 7th '99.-

I happen to be an art student at Universidad Catslica in Chile. Though I still have another year to go before I'm done with the carrer, there is one thing I've learned through this past three years... "photography is not art, but photographs CAN BE MADE INTO ART" -Marius De Sayas-. As well as two red dots on a black canvas may not be art but, yes that (at first sight) nonsence "painting" can be made into art, depending (besides many other things) on the reasons why it was made, sociological and cultural context, concept behind the image (freaking money is not the important, ultimate nor only issue). Images are a way of language and art is the most complicated and less understood language of all. -I.M.-

-- Isabel Martmnez. (vuffonitis @hotmail.com), March 07, 1999.


I have a short answer. I think any photo that was made to evoke an emotional response from the viewer or to make some sort of statement can be considered *art*. Money shouldn't be the only motivation. ~Diane~

-- Diane S. (dmsfoto@aol.com), August 27, 1999.


Wasn't it Andy Warhol that said, "Art is anything you can get away with!"

-- Jim Steele (jdsteele@hotmail.com), August 28, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ