Quote Originally Posted by jnanian
photography has always been the ugly cousin of the art world.
photography departments in schools were separated from the other arts.
no matter how much people have tried to pass it off as "fine art"
it is looked down upon ( much the way analog/analogue photographers look down upon people who use digital photography).
Like ceramics and textiles aswell, there's still a lot of snobbery about subjects that were seen as 'crafts' - but I do think it's changing, the boundaries are much more blurred now.

Quote Originally Posted by jnanian
not saying that photography isn't or can't be artistic, it can, it is just a hard sell ... i am still trying to figure out what "fine art" is... a lot of what i see doesn't seem to me to be art or fine ...
Something about 'fine art' it's a snobbish thing originally, the idea of the purity of art, the academic nature of it, unsullied by lesser art...
Ultimately, we choose to call it what we want. I call my work photographs, because I feel comfortable with that, but I definitely believe that photography can be an art form. Whether it's 'fine art' or not ....well, that's partly playing the game of the inventors of that term in the first place, and it's an argument that I think is quite sterile. Also quite divisive when those with 'legitimate' claims to speak about these issues (through being involved in the academic fine art world) appear to lay down limitations for it's full enjoyment and understanding by those outside the academic walls.
Cate