Fine Art Photography

[kat]

What does it mean to you? I typed it up and in general I got the overall feel that if it isn't journalistic or commercial then its Fine Art.

I always thought that it meant just a bit more. I may be thinking silly, hence why I ask this question.

Here is an example of how I see Fine Art.

First, I don't want anyone thinking I'm putting anything/anyone down here. Just using these as examples...!

The first link I would say is the typical portrait photos.

www.helveyphotography.com (don't know this company just grabbed the first link I found)

This second one I would say is fine art portrait photos.
http://www.wired.com/culture/art/mul...self_portraits (don't know this site either and you may wish to go throught the ten to get a feel of what I mean)

So am I wayyy off?

[mindforge]

You know, this topic has come up a few times and here is a little more on what I think Fine Art is.

A lot of people spend their lives in school learning about Fine Art, I myself am getting closer to my MFA. So, to me (and to most scholars and artists), fine art is controlled, follows rules of art and the artist, through his art education knows what Fine Art is.

All the "Masters" had decades of training and experience. There is a difference between art and fine art. Fine art obeys laws -- visual perception laws, rules and theories. Art on the other hand doesn't have boundaries. When I speak of Masters, I speak of the fine artists that have paintings that are considered living treasures: Leonardo, Dali, etc...

Fine art photography or just art. Well, that depends on the laws and visual perception rules that have been followed because at their core it is these laws that make great paintings. It creates interest and allows the image to force us to look at it longer than we would look at other images. Is it just art... or fine art? Only time can really tell (usually) and almost every time, the fine art always follows the rules of art and visual perception.

[Marko]

There's no cut and dry answer here but for me, it normally refers to non-commissioned work created just for the sake of creating it.
"Ars gratia artis" or Art for art's sake.

It gets tricky when commissioned work is so 'beautiful' or artful that people also think of it as fine art photography. Who is to say they are wrong; not I.

[kat]

Hmmm..okay. So should I be going back to school so I can get this figured out

As Marko said, "It gets tricky when commissioned work is so 'beautiful' or artful that people also think of it as fine art photography." You type up "fine art" and it's being sold everywhere and it includes every sort of photo.

So I'm just trying to get back to the basics.

Hmm..time to start some searching again.

[tirediron]

I actually dislike the term 'Fine art' simply because it has, IMO, no real definition. Portraiture is easy, as is landscape, or product photography, but a "Fine art" image could be any of those. To me, it's an attribute ascribed by the viewer. What may be 'Fine art' to you, may be a second-rate snap-shot to me, or vice-versa.

[Marko]

T.I makes a good point - overall it's not the most useful term but we use it anyway. Heck i named the site after that term, but that's because it's my favourite type of photography even though we can barely define it.

[mindforge]

Here is the way I see it...

I believe what everyone refers to here for the most part is "art" -- art is something that is in the eye of the beholder... "fine art" is a completely different term.

The term 'fine art' - by definition - is a term to indicate a traditional perspective on the art form implying an association with classic or academic art.

The word 'fine' in the word was created as a designation to denote the 'purity' of the discipline. The very definition of the word and why it was created as a term was to set itself apart in the academic and classical form.

Fine art is very different from applied art or 'eye of the beholder' art. Individual preference has no place in the use of the term fine art.

As for fine art photography, the term is used to denote photography for the purpose of aesthetic and has no function in other photographic arts, such as photojournalism and commercial photography. A great example of fine art photography is the work of Ansel Adams.

Don't get me wrong, photojournalism is an art, commercial photography is an art... it is not a fine art because by definition, as the term was created, fine art is something that implies association to classical and traditional academic rules and theories of perception.

Now, definitions for the most part are not up for discussion except for the fact that even the definitions of fine art differ depending on what source you reach to. Personally, I have been in art school for a long time for two different disciplines and there is one thing I understand that is my formed opinion and that is this....

... fine art is based and forged from study and discipline in a form of art. The capability to produce fine art does not sit in the hands of the unpracticed, I have never seen an example of accidental fine art. Every detail is paid attention to and every detail is planned according to trained principles (even if these principles are formed by your own visual theories). So, no most of us cannot just hop out and shoot a piece that would be considered fine art by the masses, we can call it fine art if we want to. I would never consider that what I do (wedding and senior photography) is fine art. It just isn't. It is art, yes... but fine art, no.

[Greg_Nuspel]

Sometime I think definitions are for people who read dictionaries. I can see where people are going with the difference between 'fine art' and 'art'. Sometimes it's amazing how much better 'art' is than some 'fine art'. A few individuals have a talent that comes from within and when they tap into it great works are created. While others may study all their lives but can't create anything that I would want to have on my walls.

I may not know 'fine art' but I know what I like and to me nothing is finer.

[AcadieLibre]

Fine Art Photography is subjective, purely subjective. Usually it means high quality photographs with very crisp clean photos of things that others will see a high value in. I looked at it this way when I got into it, if I took this photo and was to put it in on the Market would I be able to secure $xxxx amount of dollars for it and would art galleries offer to hang my work without me paying them outside the commission and the galleries would have would have work of others I would define as Fine Art.

I am now booked for the year in various galleries and I sell my work for the price point I went after. Now after all that, see it is all subjective, we all have an idea on what it means. I see a ton of photographers claiming fine art and they may well be, but if no one is willing to buy or show it, well you might look at your photos again. It is all Subjective, there is no real definition.

[Marko]

Don't get me wrong, photojournalism is an art, commercial photography is an art... it is not a fine art because by definition, as the term was created, fine art is something that implies association to classical and traditional academic rules and theories of perception.

diggin this thread.

play - What if Ansel Adams was commissioned to create an advertising campaign for Yosemite? Wouldn't his commercial prints still be fine art?

... fine art is based and forged from study and discipline in a form of art. The capability to produce fine art does not sit in the hands of the unpracticed, I have never seen an example of accidental fine art. Every detail is paid attention to and every detail is planned according to trained principles (even if these principles are formed by your own visual theories). So, no most of us cannot just hop out and shoot a piece that would be considered fine art by the masses, we can call it fine art if we want to....

Some people will jump to the exceptions but I wholeheartedly agree. Very well said - thx for that!