Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,338   Posts: 1,537,725   Online: 807
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,555
    Blog Entries
    7
    Images
    15
    I'm curious about "fine art" photography. From what I can see, the standards are set very high. I'm wondering, how 'fine' does one's own work have to be for acceptance into this unique club? If someone has great subject matter, but the print is lacking 1/2 zone in a small shadow in the bottom left corner of the print, is it thrown out? Would the small spot lacking the proper detail be considered a flaw and the print a failure in the realm of fine art? Are there fine art photographs out there which are not 100% 'perfect' yet considered masterpieces? I'd like to know what others think of fine art photography, and what the rules of it are founded on, etc.

  2. #2
    bmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,156
    Images
    9
    I wasn't aware there were any rules...
    hi!

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Southern Cal
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    485
    Images
    14
    There are no rules or specifications. If you call it fine art, then it is.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Well Sean you are in a tough situation. If you were in the US I would tell you go to one of the many galleries and look up the work by Paul Caponigro, Michael Kenna, Kenro Izu, etc, etc.....I do know, once you think you have the perfect print, do one more. If you go and show substandard work to a gallery, it is very hard to come back with better work. In this case first impressions are what matter.......If you show a print and people go Wow!...I think you have a live one.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Omaha, Nebraska
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,512
    Images
    4
    I agree with Jdef. You need to be carefull about how you define "fine art".
    a photograph can be technically perfect but have all the soul of a passport photo. There are those photographers who use craft to make an image that really speaks to us, but I would argue that most photographs that really ressonate with me are not technically perfect.

    Is a fine art photograph a beuatiful image that is used for decoration? Is it a work that is collected because of the possible appreciation in value. Is a work defined as fine art on the basis of the artist? Maybe it is the period in which it was made, or the fact that it was an image that while technically flawed, had great social impact?

    I think you have to look at photography the same as painting. masterpieces from many different concepts and styles. I personally would rate many Robert Frank, Eugene Smith, Ralph Gibson and Walker Evans images equally with Adams and Weston.
    "Fundamentally I think we need to rediscover a non-ironic world"
    Robert Adams

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Just north of the Inferno
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    750
    Images
    27
    Yes, you do have to be careful. Simply labeling it doesn't make it so.

    There is a guy in my city who runs around on the web shouting about his "Digital Fine Art Photography".

    This man could not take a decent picture to save his life. I mean he somehow manages to hit every cliche' possible in the WORST sense while avoiding anything that might be artistic. His work does have all the soul of webcam image. I mean he is AWFUL. And I rarely say that. I have yet to see a picture of his that doesn't make me want to beat him to death with the collected works of Ansel Adams.

    I mean BAD.

    Yet in many of his descriptions of his work he talks about how his work is "fine art" and is "elevated, sometimes surreal and sometimes dada".

    Apparently surreal means blasting the model with 10,000 W/S and tinting the resulting mess sickly orange. No kidding. I mean BAD. Almost cheap-porn magazine bad. But without even the porn aspect to jusitfy it's existance.

    Fine art? No.



    Official Photo.net Villain
    ----------------------
    [FONT=Comic Sans MS]DaVinci never wrote an artist's statement...[/FONT]

  7. #7
    Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,555
    Blog Entries
    7
    Images
    15
    hilarious

  8. #8
    Eric Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Calgary AB, Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,243
    Images
    73
    Gee Robert, now tell us how you really feel!
    www.ericrose.com
    yourbaddog.com

    "civility is not a sign of weakness" JFK

    "The Dude abides" - the Dude

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Just north of the Inferno
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    750
    Images
    27
    Yeah...I shouldn't have held back on that post......

    Official Photo.net Villain
    ----------------------
    [FONT=Comic Sans MS]DaVinci never wrote an artist's statement...[/FONT]

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Does he have a web site?......

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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