I have to agree with David. I have two sections on my web site for images, Fine Art and Travel. I approach each differently. My travel images, mostly done in 35mm, don't have the studied approach I use with my Fine Art work, mostly 4x5.
Originally Posted by David H. Bebbington
I as well. Most of my images are triple matted, and I select the color of the inner mat based upon the image as well as the frame itself. I look at the complete package, not just the image.
Originally Posted by naturephoto1
I call my stuff "fine art photography" because......well because......I can.
It's called marketing.
I'd call it "fine cuisine" but since I don't own a restaurant, I don't.
There a many words I could use but since I didn't bother to take the time to think of them, I just copied what someone else had done.
Seems to work.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
The 'fine art' descriptor makes sense to me just to reinforce the notion that it doesn't include weddings, bar mitzvahs, car crashes and perp walks. I think it also suggests, perhaps pretentiously (though I like to think it doesn't) that there's a bit more to it than what would constitute mere 'decor' making, even if that's how it eventually ends up. It's also a bit more streamlined on one's business card than "Photographer of Images That Are Only Intended for Display, Contemplation and Aesthetic Stimulation Inc."
To me, fine art is anything done without a computer. It is something that takes real human talent. It is a craft that is learned over time and perfected using your human skills and talents, not a programmers that has provided algorithms to give you the ability to reproduce within his constraints not through the expansion of your own progressive creativity.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I don't think it is so much of how it is produced, as it is whether or not it is shown, and in what context it is shown. Coming from a painting background, I see one off artwork could be considered fine art, which I suppose could lead some to think I would be biased against editions, or limited editions. My own choice is one off images for my photography displayed as fine art, though I recently had one of my fine art images chosen for use in an ad campaign (many thousands of reprints off a press); there is still only one original bit of film, and one chemical print from that.
There are many good explanations and thoughts in this thread. While getting a one true definition or concept might be elusive, hopefully reading all these posts gives you an idea of how to express this concept to your own satisfaction. If you want to define it very tightly, or be somewhat loose in your interpretation, I think few would take offense, nor would many consider it wrong.
The one original in photography is that frame of film that captured that image. Anything after that is a reproduction, though the choices of reproduction are often aspects that lead to heated discussions. My opinion is that inkjet reproduction is more like poster printing, but despite what I think about this there are numerous photographers selling inkjet prints as fine art prints. There is no mob rule in fine art, though we can only look back years from now to see how our current situation affects art history.
Technically if I wanted to use cardboard or newsprint and draw on it with magic markers, it could be fine art . . . if I can get a juror to accept it to an exhibit, or get a gallery to display it. While such an image would not be archival and probably fall apart after a couple years, it would still be fine art, just not finely made fine art. I have seen this often outside of photography, with paintings or scultures done in such a way that I know they will deteriorate, sometimes rapidly. I have also seen interesting exhibits involving wax cast sculptures that burned and melted, lasting only for a short time during the opening, and perhaps only retained for future generations viewing as a series of stills or a video. There has also been video as fine art, some of it I think very poorly done, though a few surprises.
The wonderful thing about the art world is that everything is in a constant state of change and motion. If you really want to push some aspects of your photography, perhaps you want to state that is it traditional photography, rather than just fine art.
A G Studio
Last edited by HerrBremerhaven; 09-13-2006 at 03:52 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: Spellcheck failed me. :-(
I didn't read any of the replies so I can say what I think is Fine Art Photography. I believe it is Photography taken without the desire to make it commercial. That's not to say that any Photo can be used commercially. I believe it's Photography for Photographys sake.
Hmmmm..... Where you stand depends on where you sit.
Originally Posted by kjsphoto
Luv David G.'s answer. Succinct and accurate from my perspective.
A cynical answer to the question "is it fine art?" might be
incidentally the last part seems often to be molded by the middle part, and certainly isn't essential to the process.
It is Fine Art if it is designed to be received and successful by[in] the marketing machine of the world of collectable art, whilst holding true to the artist's intentions.
Though certainly not as far down the road as you Brian, I commonly run into the same line of questioning and end up with the same conundrum of [font=Courier New]what's an appropriate answer in this situation?.[/font] Depending on my knowledge of the enquirer and if they seem unlikely to be receptive to a long answer, I'll dumb it right down - [font=Courier New]"I do photographic art - for the walls"[/font]. Usually that will prick their curiosity enough to enquire further. If I wish to, I can then tell them more on my own terms.
Originally Posted by Early Riser
Last edited by John McCallum; 09-13-2006 at 07:33 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Fine Art to me is art done absolutly and entirely without the influence of money or selling the piece. Fine art is not made for sale because selling pieces effects the art created. Fine art is pure and made without these outside distractions purely for satisfaction.
If you make prints expressly for selling you are doing commercial art.
Fine art to me is not made to sell its made as art only. Don't get me wrong you can sell fine art but the imagery, painting or whatever it is is made without these outside influences of money that inherently effect the images. Imagery made without the influence of selling.