I think Harrigan should be congratulated - as far as I can recall, this is the quickest and largest amount of agreement on a subject concerning "art" that I have witnessed since I started visiting APUG .
FWIW, to me, for photography to be considered "Fine Art Photography", it must something different than a simple record, or illustration, or representation that is intended to fulfill another purpose (such as sell another product).
The photograph must be created with an intention that it convey an impression, message, view, emotion or feeling, and with the expectation that it accomplish its task by being viewed, in person. It might reasonably be expected to be hung on a wall, or a desk, or a shelf, with a frame (although other display options are a possibility (murals?).
I guess I am trying to say that a "Fine Art Photograph" is the reason for its own existence. It needs to either stand on its own, or in the case of photographs in a series, in conjunction with other parts of the series. The photograph needs to be and make its own statement, to be a Fine Art Photograph.
It is certainly possible that other types of photography can both accomplish other purposes and at the same time be imbued with artistic purpose and vision (e.g. travel photographs, journalism or cinematography).
I acknowledge that this description tends to exclude from consideration photographs that form part of more multi-disciplinary and multi-media forms of artistic expression. I expect there is some way of rewording the description to include those as well, but I cannot quite figure out how.
Last edited by MattKing; 09-14-2006 at 02:19 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: To make more sense!