Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,712   Posts: 1,482,998   Online: 805
      
Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 143

Thread: Fine Art Status

  1. #101

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,263
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    2
    make art, make good art, make art that pleases you, make art that pleases the commercial marketplace
    make art that pleases others ... it is all the same, but drastically different ...

    when someone has their work in a gallery, the gallery owner is a sales person, a contact to current and past customers "collectors:.
    when someone starts to collect your "work" they want as much stuff (that is the same) as possible.
    if you swerve off the road and start doing abstractions, instead postcard-esqe landscapes
    the gallerist will suggest politely that you keep doing what you were doing, because his/her livelihood
    depends on selling your work, not on you doing work to please yourself

    it is the same as doing commercial work for IBM ... they don't want to see something different,
    they want the same thing you showed them before ...

  2. #102

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    912
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesi...aphy-is-it-art

    Not again, please, please not this again.

  3. #103
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,421
    Once people who take photographs start refering to themselves as artists or fine artists, I try my best to avoid them.
    Ben

  4. #104
    eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,308
    Images
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by benjiboy View Post
    Once people who take photographs start refering to themselves as artists or fine artists, I try my best to avoid them.
    Are you saying photography can't be art? If photographs never rise to the level of art, I'd agree with you. But, since I often think it does, I'd have to disagree. If a photographer has created a work of art, why shouldn't he/she call him/herself an artist? It's a fairly generic term, which helps to define the photographer's goal.

  5. #105
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    The definition of a branch of photography as "Fine art photography" has nothing to do with the useless "but is it art?" question as infinitely proposed on internet fora.

    Photography is practiced by humanity mainly with some practical purpose. Imagine a product catalogue, a leaflet, a brochure, the photograph on your identity card, photographs to classify insects, to draw an inventory of a museum, pictures to illustrate gossip newspapers, to illustrate yesterday's foot-ball match, to document a war, or a famine, or a speech from some politician etc. etc.

    When we say "photography" we include scientific photography, documentary photography, news photography, paparazzi-style photography, war photography, fashion photography, legal and forensic photography, pornographic photography etc.

    A very small percentage of all photography produced has, instead, the purpose of creating something nice to hang on a wall. There must be a term to distinguish this "candidate to wall hanging" photography from all other kinds of photography. This term is "fine art photography".

    Think of it as "a photograph created with the same purpose of a painting".

    When people say "Fine art photography" they just mean "a photograph intended to be nice and hung on a wall". They just mean the purpose is only being pleasant to the eye without any practical further use.

    By the same token a fine art ceramic plate is a piece of ceramics that you hang on the wall (because it has a nice colourful pattern) and is not intended to be used to eat soup. Since the times of the Etruscans and Greeks there are vases, kraters etc. that had no other purpose than adorning the house or the garden. They never saw water or wine in their life. They were "fine art kraters". Maybe they only had a geometric pattern on them. Their reason to exist was just aesthetic and not practical.

    That said, IMHO "fine art photography" is not "art" in the highest sense as no photography is ever "art" in the highest sense, not even Saint Ansel's production. I see it more as a craft, the domain of skill and taste. Mestiere.

    But it is legitimately called "fine art photography" because that is the linguistic convention to distinguish it from the other genres of photography.
    Last edited by Diapositivo; 10-20-2012 at 06:36 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  6. #106
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    The definition of a branch of photography as "Fine art photography" has nothing to do with the useless "but is it art?" question as infinitely proposed on internet fora.

    Photography is practiced by humanity mainly with some practical purpose. Imagine a product catalogue, a leaflet, a brochure, the photograph on your identity card, photographs to classify insects, to draw an inventory of a museum, pictures to illustrate gossip newspapers, to illustrate yesterday's foot-ball match, to document a war, or a famine, or a speech from some politician etc. etc.

    When we say "photography" we include scientific photography, documentary photography, news photography, paparazzi-style photography, war photography, fashion photography, legal and forensic photography, pornographic photography etc.

    A very small percentage of all photography produced has, instead, the purpose of creating something nice to hang on a wall. There must be a term to distinguish this "candidate to wall hanging" photography from all other kinds of photography. This term is "fine art photography".

    Think of it as "a photograph created with the same purpose of a painting".

    When people say "Fine art photography" they just mean "a photograph intended to be nice and hung on a wall". They just mean the purpose is only being pleasant to the eye without any practical further use.

    By the same token a fine art ceramic plate is a piece of ceramics that you hang on the wall (because it has a nice colourful pattern) and is not intended to be used to eat soup. Since the times of the Etruscans and Greeks there are vases, kraters etc. that had no other purpose than adorning the house or the garden. They never saw water or wine in their life. They were "fine art kraters". Maybe they only had a geometric pattern on them. Their reason to exist was just aesthetic and not practical.

    That said, IMHO "fine art photography" is not "art" in the highest sense as no photography is ever "art" in the highest sense, not even Saint Ansel's production. I see it more as a craft, the domain of skill and taste. Mestiere.

    But it is legitimately called "fine art photography" because that is the linguistic convention to distinguish it from the other genres of photography.

    I like your definition and your thought process.

    Although I still think photography can achieve the level of art. And to me, beauty and art can be in the eye of the beholder. Therefore to me a photograph reaches the level of art when it evokes a deep emotional response from a viewer. And we can legitimately disagree on each given piece. Which is no different from a sculpture or a painting or a piece of music.

    I don't however believe that because someone dreamed something up or created something that it automatically becomes art.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  7. #107

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    655
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    I once overheard a woman in a private art gallery in conversation with her friend say “but darling, they’re all so affordable”.
    Give me her number.
    I photograph things to see what things look like photographed.
    - Garry Winogrand

  8. #108
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    2,916
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    When people say "Fine art photography" they just mean "a photograph intended to be nice and hung on a wall".
    Fabrizio,

    I don't mean to criticise your thoughtful presentation, but...

    If you're right, then we are going to have a very short discussion.

  9. #109

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    655
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    ...That said, IMHO "fine art photography" is not "art" in the highest sense as no photography is ever "art" in the highest sense, not even Saint Ansel's production. I see it more as a craft, the domain of skill and taste. Mestiere.

    But it is legitimately called "fine art photography" because that is the linguistic convention to distinguish it from the other genres of photography.
    Let me dip in here with a question. Do you say Photography 'is not "art" in the highest sense' because of, what? Why? Its reproducibility? Certainly the David is art in the highest sense and, although it could be reproduced, let's be serious; it's a one off. Is it uniqueness that is the basis? Is that why photography is not Art (as in artist) but Craft (as in artisan) in you view? I ask because I once saw a show of work by, I think, Kim Weston. One feature of the works for sale is that each piece had its negative permanently mounted on the back of the print. This was his attempt to provide uniqueness to the eminently reproducible photograph. I don't know if it worked for him.
    I photograph things to see what things look like photographed.
    - Garry Winogrand

  10. #110
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,724
    Images
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by semi-ambivalent View Post
    I think, Kim Weston. One feature of the works for sale is that each piece had its negative permanently mounted on the back of the print. This was his attempt to provide uniqueness to the eminently reproducible photograph. I don't know if it worked for him.
    They were probably copy negs

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin