Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,765   Posts: 1,516,351   Online: 1020
      
Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 26789101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 216
  1. #111
    phenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    penguin-cold Montreal
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    218
    There’s not a single kind of fine art photography. If it were so, it would have been so boring.

    But I would made a distinction from the beginning: there is a subject matter which is the goal of the work, and than there are the means to reach this goal. I don’t consider to be a fine art photography the work which sets the means for goals. On the contrary, I would say that it has great chances to be considered a fine art photography the work that uses the most appropriate means to express the subject the photographer choused. Talking about content and form is the same thing.

    Besides this distinction, there are goals and goals. Mainly I distinguish two very large categories of such goals: beauty and truth. I also consider that a mature artist will have to choose one between these two, for the rest of his work life.

    Also, a very important issue is the artist’s personality, because it always marks his work. And again, very basically, people born with a preference for (or reach it in the first 2-3 months of their life) one of the two very large groups of personality: neurotics or perverse. We all are both neurotics and perverse, but each of us is more one than the other. So, the viewers will also resonate with one or another artist, mainly according to their personalities. You cannot like both, Dorothea Lange and Diane Arbus. But this doesn’t mean that only one of them made fine art photography. The same in music: you cannot like both (at least not equally) Beethoven and Mozart, Wagner and Verdi, Mahler and Debussy, etc.

    Well, this are the thoughts passing trough my head within these last 5 minutes.
    Last edited by phenix; 06-16-2009 at 10:55 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    B&W is silver.

  2. #112
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,940
    A properly printed photograph of a well composed subject. It may or may not have a story but because of the composition and the execution of the printing ones interest in the photograph is compelling.

    It could be a slide. The point is the composition and execution draws ones full attention.

    Steve
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  3. #113
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    "Fine art photography" is a concept that I have honestly never come to terms with. It's always been disagreeable to me.

    In photography there is a continuum of effective art ranging from impromptu street "captures" to meticulously constructed, highly deliberative depictions with varying degrees of abstractness. I don't see a clear dividing line between fine and un-fine in this vast expanse.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  4. #114
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,172
    Images
    148
    Not all photographs are art, in the same way as not all sketches or drawings & paintings are art.

    To be "fine art" a photograph or often a series of photographs is generlally of a standard that would be acceptable to a range of galleries and publications, and sold to collectors.

    The term isn't specifically about subject, technique, fame, commercial success etc but is more about how work is perceived, conceptualised, executed and presented, and the photographer needs to be able to articulate the background to the work putting it into context vwith contemporary photographic practice.

    Ian

  5. #115

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    In "fine" art the focus is on pure esthetics. Visual esthetics in the case of photography. And it has to be pleasing. Nice.
    The subject matter matters very little, as long as the thingies look pleasing. So you could say fine art has no subject matter besides esthetics.

    That opposed to "art", in which the subject matter is important, and there is no requirement to please.

  6. #116
    phaedrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Waltershausen, Thuringia, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    463
    Images
    11
    The common discerning characteritic of a fine art photograph is the context of it's presentation.

  7. #117
    mooseontheloose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kyoto, Japan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,652
    Images
    36
    Thanks guys - you've given me a lot to think about.
    Rachelle

    My favorite thing is to go where I've never been. D. Arbus

  8. #118

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,792
    anything can be considered fine art or fine art photography ...
    it all depends on who you are and who you are showing "the work" to ..
    if my apug gallery looks empty you might check these places

    website
    blog
    sell-site

  9. #119
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    The way I see it, it is very simple:

    If the photograph is there just for the purpose of being a photograph, or to sell itself as a photographic object, it is fine art.

    If the photograph is used as imagery to sell or promote something else beside the photograph itself, it is not fine art, but commercial.

    If it is neither, then it is neither. e.g. family album pix.

    This being said, photos that were once fine art can be later used for commercial purposes (and vice versa in some cases), and stylistic crossover is not only possible, but extremely prevalent. Therefore, it is use and purpose of the images, not the style and/or content that makes the determination.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 06-18-2009 at 11:59 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  10. #120

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    100
    I see it even more simply: photos are either primarily art or primarily documentation.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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