Is there such a thing as “Professional standards” in Fine Art photography?

[AlHam]

As a student photographer interested in fine art photography my current assignment has me researching professional standards inherent to fine art photography. It is my opinion that there are no professional standards, at least in the creation of fine art prints, for a number of different reasons:

i. Fine art, that is art considered to be created for aesthetics and intellectual purposes and judged for its beauty or meaningfulness, is created in the artists own vision and therefore to have any “standards” would be to restrict the creativity of the artist.
ii. Fine art photographs are not normally commissioned at the outset and therefore there are no standards to meet when dealing with clients as there would be for say a portrait photographer.
iii. As fine art is not relied on to communicate the truth such as documentary or photojournalism a fine art photograph is not beholden to it.

When the artwork goes for sale then a whole host of other professional standards come into play as there would be for any retailer but these are not specific to the fine art photography specialisation.

What are your thoughts? Are there any professional standards for fine art photographers?

[Barefoot]

Fine Art is a bourgeois concept.

[AlHam]

How so? i'd like to know your thinking?

[mbrager]

My off the top of my head thoughts go more towards community standards, versus professional standards. Pornography, for example. There are generally written and unwritten community standards around publishing pornography, but these are not professional, written standards coming from within the industry. I don't agree with your point ii, as I believe portrait photography is fine art photography. Again, there are community standards with regards to photographer's ethical behavior, and certainly such a thing as "reputation" which translates to a community consensus. But these are not always about the photographs per se, just about the creation of the photographs. Even wildlife photographers have to consider community standards when creating photos of animals if the act of photography causes any harm to the environment.
Not sure these few thoughts are helpful, but perhaps we can continue a dialogue.

[Marko]

When photography is professionally judged, it is judged according to a 'standard'. (Good composition, lighting, exposure, focus post-processing, impact etc.) These are staple photography standards. To my mind they apply to fine art photography as well - whatever that is.
Although that standard may vary from competition to competition (more weight on Impact) the elements that make the overall standard tend to be similar.
Violate this standard...so that the composition is bad, the lighting sucks and it's out of focus - and you have a photograph that tends to be crap. The greater the violations the more crappy the image - on average.
Once in a rare while you get a rule breaker that blows you away - chances are they know the basics though, and are able to produce 'classic' high quality work according to some of the standards.

When it comes to printing the print should have a a wide variety of tomes from pure white to pure black... The print should sing. Check out Ansel Adams for inspiration. Prints today should sing as loud or louder.
Only experience will get you making prints that sing. But Certainly when you've lost all the tones in the print, your main subject is out of focus...and you just don't have the knowledge to get that print to sing - it will suffer.

Unless the craft was developed yesterday there are no standards - but any craft with a history...has standards.
This is just my opinion...but if you're not a good photographer, you can't be a good fine art photographer....and you can't be a good photographer unless you have a few thousand hours of practice under your belt....
Or you win the natural talent lottery.

[Barefoot]

Forgive my feble attempt at photographic humor, AIHam.

"He had his little Leica," Newton remembers, "and he simply would point and shoot." Since Cartier-Bresson's hand isn't as steady as it used to be, some of the pictures were a bit fuzzy. "Sharpness," he told Newton, "is a bourgeois concept." Newton sits back and laughs: "I thought that was just divine." (https://www.newsweek.com/opposites-attract-137833)

[Barefoot]

I can't recommend highly enough Professor Jeff Curto's History of Photography podcast. (http://photohistory.jeffcurto.com)

[AlHam]

Thanks for the reply mbrager. the community standard for professionals is what i was trying to explore. So far i've only really found the consensus within the standard of the final print not the standards that a fine art photographer might/should adhere to in the creation of their artwork. I agree portrait photography can be fine art photography however, for me and my definition it depends on the reason for taking that image. If the reason is purely to create an image that is aesthetically pleasing or to explore a concept then the portrait photograph falls into fine art. If the reason is to take a photograph for a client to capture their likeness than this is not fine art per se in my opinion. A portrait photographer is commissioned by a client for a task(to show their likeness in the best way) a fine art photographer is exploring their own vision.