Posted by Lon Overacker on January 31, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Since this is a photography forum, I won't be asking whether or not photography is art. I suspect it would be a one sided discussion since I believe most, if not every one of us believes photography is art.
I would like to bring to a discussion the term "fine art." I've read in many places that the term is thrown around very loosly and I don't necessarily disagree with that. But in terms of your own body of work, what or how do you determine what consitutes "fine art nature photography?"
The reason I'm asking is because I'm struggling with this as it relates to my own work and specifically how I present it on my website. Currently, I have categories for "artist's favorites", "Large format," "stock by subject and location." And they're all under "Galleries."
I'm really wanting to call my favorites, "fine art" to make a distinction between my best, and my average. I made a decsion a few years back to use a database on the website which allows me to display hundreds or even thousands of images. I can add images without generating new html code every time, which is a great convenience.
Anyway, I would like your opinions on labeling a gallery called "fine art." I realize this is a photography community and not artists at large or the general public, but I'm still curious as to your thoughts.
Posted by Lon Overacker on January 31, 2007 at 6:55 PM
Thanks Guy,
So... having a gallery on a website title "Fine Art Prints" or "Fine Art Nature Photography" where prints are offered for sale, would be appropriate? or at least not far from the spirit of fine art? in your opinion...
Tx,
Lon
Posted by Mark Stahlke on January 31, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Fine art photography is a grainy black & white print of a mundane subject shot by a dead white guy, printed at 5x7, framed at 20x24 and hung in a gallery where it is admired by pony tailed, black clad cognoscenti who drink white wine from champagne flutes and stroke each other's egos by nodding knowingly at insipid comments about the artist's vision.
But I'm not bitter.
Posted by Roger Rouch on February 1, 2007 at 12:08 AM
I almost can't answer as I'm chuckling so hard over Mark's reply.
....but my thought is that "fine art" remains in the eye of the beholder. It is a fluid definition that can describe a variety of creative efforts. If you feel like your finished product is up to a standard of high excellence, it may be fine and it may be art. For the intention of attaching a label, I'd be more tempted to call it something else, perhaps high quality prints or fine nature art, and let the viewer decide. We may be haggling over semantics.
Posted by Lance Wynn on February 1, 2007 at 12:24 AM
I've seen plenty of the type of "fine art" Mark was talking about. Thanks for the laughs, you hit the nail right on the head.
Posted by Lance Wynn on February 1, 2007 at 12:27 AM
I'm new to this site, just starting to get my portfolio put together here. I should say hello to everybody. So, hello everybody.
Posted by Carol Hyman on February 1, 2007 at 12:35 AM
Hey, Mark,
But if you can't beat them, join them.
I'm still chuckling.
Cheers ;^)
Carol Hyman
http://hy-tec-training.com
Posted by Lon Overacker on February 1, 2007 at 2:05 AM
Mark - LOL, I got a chuckle out of that one. You must have seen that crowd a time or two? :-)
Guy and John, thanks for the links to wikipedia. That helps a little.... like most things, there's plenty of room for interpretation.
I'll think some more on this. Thanks for the responses.
Hello, I m not sure whether I am qualified to give input, but this is something I ask my self constantly. In my opinion fine art landscape photography starts where mere recording and documentation of a scene ends. It is about interpretation,about showing things in a very appealing,exiting way. An image for the sole decorative value - but here comes the hard part: The photographer should not be an entertainer. He should create with the intention to create something beauiful, but without the intention to please the viewer - it becomes "kitsch". However taste of the viewer should also be met, otherwise it will not be perceived as beautiful. Fine art for me is also about some degree of abstraction - enhance and alter things beyond what reality shows without overdoing it. I don't know if this makes sense, but that's how I understand it at the moment.
Regards Dietrich
When it comes to websites, some photographers seem to use the FA term just do differentiate their personal work from stock/commercial photography. It`s not good vs best - both categories may be equally excellent but they were created with different purposes in mind. See http://www.stephenwilkes.com/main.html for a vague example (beware of slow Flash though).
If it comes to your favourite images, I would call them just that. They are no less art just because you don`t label them as FA, IMO. On the other hand, what do I know... I just have a ponytail
Mark, you forgot that the image must have been captured with a handheld Leica to create the blurry negative using the sharpest and most expensive lenses available.
Also in general all B&W images of poor people automatically qualify as the finest of photo art.
Guy
Posted by Dan Borzynski on February 1, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Fine Art = $450 24x30 Cibachromes taped to the wall. Not matted. Not framed. Taped. Yes, taped. And not very well done subjects, composition or digital work
Yes, I really did see this at a local gallery here in Columbus. That and a few other less blatant abuses and I really have decided that fine art means whatever the producer wants it to mean.
Personally, I don't use that phrase in promoting my work because there are many interpretations, too many of which lead to the above example.
I would cite Danny Burk's prints as an example of what it should mean, as the highest quality prints which very difficult *not* to stare at. His website does not do justice to the actual prints, especially printed large (16x20 and beyond).
Posted by Darwin Wiggett on February 1, 2007 at 11:35 AM
There is no accepted edfinition of "fine art photography". In gallery settings fine art is generally less documentary in nature and more interpretive and personal and expresionary.
But in the end labelling yourself or your work as 'fine art' is arbitrary and is mostly a marketing scheme - the label 'fine art' has a cache about it that makes people think they are getting more for their money. And therefore you can sell your prints at a higher price. Really the term is used so loosely now and on such a divergent quality of work, that I feel it has lost its intrinsic value (like the terms 'new' or 'improved').
Since you're asking for an opinion.... Based on what I'm reading from you, I'd consider just dividing your site into two pieces: stock, and fine art. I've never known anyone to buy photographs based on format (re: your LF gallery), and while I can appreciate it, I'm not sure what purpose having a 'Favorites' serves.
How you market yourself and your photography is important, and I'm not sure that making distinctions between your GOOD work and your OKAY work is a great idea. My opinion only.
The cynical view of "Fine Art" that has been expressed here may be good for a laugh, but I think it also shows that by adopting that opinion we are no different than the crowd we seem to be making fun of. If you sincerely believe that YOUR work deserves to be in those galleries/museums then may I ask why isn't it there already? Apart from all those out-of-focus, grainy B&W photos of seemingly uninteresting subjects, there are also examples of really good photography, including nature stuff, that grace the walls of major galleries and museums. The way I see it, being cynical won't get us there.
Coming to the subject of this thread, I'll add that maybe we ought to forget about the fine-art label and just focus on the photography. Let others worry about classification, tagging and compartmentalization.
Anil, I agree with your premise but I also know there are many who are guilty of hijacking art for purposes of social elitism. In my opinion they deserve nothing but scorn for taking away a spiritual concept and turning it into a solely-political or monetary asset (or both).
Point taken, Guy. However, I might add that how is this any different than someone labelling his/her own work as "fine-art" on a web-site? Isn't the sole purpose of that label monetary benefit (or elitism)? If not, I wonder what the self-proclaimed "fine art" tag on a photography web-site is for.
So, unless I am reading things wrong, some of the scorn ~ usually reserved for the pseudo-elite artsy crowd that pack gallery openings and the artists who display their work there ~ should also be directed toward the photographers who label their "own" work as fine-art on their repsective web-sites. No?
Why can't we just call our work photography? Isn't that enough?
No, "solely" is a binary condition. Either it is or it's not.
I hesitate to call my work anything these days. Even "photography" is a loaded term which seems to imply that the camera knows better than I do what should be portrayed in my images.
Guy
Posted by Dan Borzynski on February 2, 2007 at 1:32 PM
I've read artist statements that said far less than that, with many more big words. I think you have a long way to go before getting it right
Posted by Jim Jirka on February 2, 2007 at 1:42 PM
Don't forget the important types of art, calendar, postcard and decorative.
Posted by Eric Fredine on February 2, 2007 at 2:41 PM
I guess I'm just less cynical than Guy - I think there are a lot of artists trying to do earnest work for legitimate reasons - some of which I don't understand and some of which I don't (or wouldn't if I understood them) agree with. There are many corruptions and many discussions about these corruptions but to claim there are people (perhaps even many of them) who are completely corrupted (ie. doing the work 'solely' for money or politics) seems very jaded indeed. I just think we live in a much greyer world than that.
Posted by Gloria Hopkins on February 4, 2007 at 11:53 AM
I personlly think the phrase is not being read or interpreted accurately, and hasn't been for many decades, and maybe even hundreds of years. You are trying to qualify the phrase "fine art." I see "fine" art as opposed to "fine" food, or "fine" woodworking.
To me it means quality. Is it fine enough to call it fine? And I don't mean just with technique but with concept, execution, originality, uniqueness, wow-factor, ability to convey message, and a slew of other things (you'all know well) that make a visual image "art." I take it very literally and I can tell right off whether I would consider a piece as "fine" or not.
I have a little series of "Florida" paintings. They consist of manatees, coconuts, signage, etc. Is it fine work? Sure, some of my best, but is it fine art? Not by a long shot. The subjects are Florida-cliche and they're not much more than therapy-doodling for me. Now my moonlight mountains, yes, I consider them fine art, absolutely.
Discussion
26 repliesI would like to bring to a discussion the term "fine art." I've read in many places that the term is thrown around very loosly and I don't necessarily disagree with that. But in terms of your own body of work, what or how do you determine what consitutes "fine art nature photography?"
The reason I'm asking is because I'm struggling with this as it relates to my own work and specifically how I present it on my website. Currently, I have categories for "artist's favorites", "Large format," "stock by subject and location." And they're all under "Galleries."
I'm really wanting to call my favorites, "fine art" to make a distinction between my best, and my average. I made a decsion a few years back to use a database on the website which allows me to display hundreds or even thousands of images. I can add images without generating new html code every time, which is a great convenience.
Anyway, I would like your opinions on labeling a gallery called "fine art." I realize this is a photography community and not artists at large or the general public, but I'm still curious as to your thoughts.
Regards,
Lon
"Fine art" refers to art that is in the tradition of classic concepts of beauty (translated from the French "beaux arts").
More recently and with regards to photography it assumed a different meaning relating to the quality of printing.
Here's more than you ever wanted to know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art_photography
Guy
So... having a gallery on a website title "Fine Art Prints" or "Fine Art Nature Photography" where prints are offered for sale, would be appropriate? or at least not far from the spirit of fine art? in your opinion...
Tx,
Lon
But I'm not bitter.
....but my thought is that "fine art" remains in the eye of the beholder. It is a fluid definition that can describe a variety of creative efforts. If you feel like your finished product is up to a standard of high excellence, it may be fine and it may be art. For the intention of attaching a label, I'd be more tempted to call it something else, perhaps high quality prints or fine nature art, and let the viewer decide. We may be haggling over semantics.
But if you can't beat them, join them.
I'm still chuckling.
Cheers ;^)
Carol Hyman
http://hy-tec-training.com
Guy and John, thanks for the links to wikipedia. That helps a little.... like most things, there's plenty of room for interpretation.
I'll think some more on this. Thanks for the responses.
Lon
Regards Dietrich
If it comes to your favourite images, I would call them just that. They are no less art just because you don`t label them as FA, IMO. On the other hand, what do I know... I just have a ponytail
Guy
Also in general all B&W images of poor people automatically qualify as the finest of photo art.
Guy
Yes, I really did see this at a local gallery here in Columbus. That and a few other less blatant abuses and I really have decided that fine art means whatever the producer wants it to mean.
Personally, I don't use that phrase in promoting my work because there are many interpretations, too many of which lead to the above example.
I would cite Danny Burk's prints as an example of what it should mean, as the highest quality prints which very difficult *not* to stare at. His website does not do justice to the actual prints, especially printed large (16x20 and beyond).
But in the end labelling yourself or your work as 'fine art' is arbitrary and is mostly a marketing scheme - the label 'fine art' has a cache about it that makes people think they are getting more for their money. And therefore you can sell your prints at a higher price. Really the term is used so loosely now and on such a divergent quality of work, that I feel it has lost its intrinsic value (like the terms 'new' or 'improved').
Darwin
How you market yourself and your photography is important, and I'm not sure that making distinctions between your GOOD work and your OKAY work is a great idea. My opinion only.
Coming to the subject of this thread, I'll add that maybe we ought to forget about the fine-art label and just focus on the photography. Let others worry about classification, tagging and compartmentalization.
Guy
Guy
Why can't we just call our work photography? Isn't that enough?
I hesitate to call my work anything these days. Even "photography" is a loaded term which seems to imply that the camera knows better than I do what should be portrayed in my images.
Guy
I read an interesting blog post this morning on the nature of money and fairness in the art world which seems applicable to this discussion: http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com/2007/01/looking-for-fairness-in-age-of-art.html
And another by the same blogger on his assumptions (and how those assumptions are being tested) about what makes fine art:
http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com/2007/01/losing-my-assumptions.html
Enjoy!
Eric
To me it means quality. Is it fine enough to call it fine? And I don't mean just with technique but with concept, execution, originality, uniqueness, wow-factor, ability to convey message, and a slew of other things (you'all know well) that make a visual image "art." I take it very literally and I can tell right off whether I would consider a piece as "fine" or not.
I have a little series of "Florida" paintings. They consist of manatees, coconuts, signage, etc. Is it fine work? Sure, some of my best, but is it fine art? Not by a long shot. The subjects are Florida-cliche and they're not much more than therapy-doodling for me. Now my moonlight mountains, yes, I consider them fine art, absolutely.