Quote Originally Posted by thefizz
That seems to be the case today as very Tom, Dick and Harry boasts about producing Fine Art Photography even though some of them wouldn't know a properly produced photograph if it slapped them in the face.

I know what I like might be crap to what someone else likes but I thought the term "Fine Art" applied to the processes (i.e. FB paper, archival washing, mounting etc.) and not the actual subject of the picture.

To me a properly prduced FB print could be classed as Fine Art but not something printed in my local 1 hour shop?
Technique has absolutely nothing to do with it. Think of 'installation art' or deliberately ephemeral art. You could have a 'fine art' print made by your mini-lab, or you could make a palladium print on hand-made paper coated by virgins under the light of the full moon and processed to last for 1000 years and still have it fail as fine art. Consider some of Jackson Pollock's 'Pure Paint' paintings: the highest or finest of mid-to-late 20th century 'Fine Art' but falling apart at an ever-increasing rate today.

David's definition -- that 'fine art' is the antithesis of 'applied art' -- is the one that has been accepted for the last 200 or 300 years, but without wishing to disagree with David for one moment about a classical definition, I'd suggest that 500 years ago there was no distinction and that his definition is, shall we say, under siege to some extent today. It's probably the best definition you'll ever get, though.

Cheers,

Roger