Not this again. Only Peter Lik is a fine art photographer. Gursky is just an art photographer. Both are beyond awful.
Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller
In the modern vernacular, 'fine art photography' is a marketing term. 'Fine art', which is the term you used, is only typically made in reference to painting.
'Fine art photography', if we can finally get it straight, is decorative, produced in vast quantities and cheap (Peter Lik is a prime example) relative to art photography or contemporary photography, which is mostly high concept, a handful of prints and very expensive (Gursky is a prime example).
With 'fine art photography', which is what the OP is after, business always comes first. Most fine art photographers would bother with this, as they need as many people to buy as many of their prints as possible. This would be perfect exposure to that end
Sorry, but this terminology is my biggest photographic pet peeve.