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.