Fine art

[simonpg]

Much is written and said about fine art in photography. But occassionally I wonder what really defines an image as fine art?

Is there something objective that defines it or is it a very subjective thing - in the eye of the beholder; or the eyes of the viewer?

When I see a nicely made LF image, say of a very old door, or a wonderful Adams image of driftwood or the like, I do wonder - what defined this as fine art (regards of how enthused or otherwise I feel about it)?

Is, for ex&le, fine art restricted to the realms of larger formats; can a 135 format image be "fine art"; can a street image be fine art? Doe the "artist" objectively decide that "today I will make a fine art image"?

How do I know if my "artistic" image is fine art to others?

Forgive me if you feel my questions are ridiculous, but they do arise as I thumb through lovely books made up of beautiful "art" images.

Do you make fine art images? How do you personally define that; how do you decide that what you made is not fine art?

 

[patgphoto]

I don't feel that the artist has the final say whether or not their art is "fine art" or not regardless of medium. I just try to be a good photographer, and hope everything else will follow.

 

[qnu]

"Art" and "objective" do not mix.

Doesn't mean that art is an individual thing though (can be, but doesn't have to be). Mostly, it is a matter of what 'norms' and 'standards' are used within a certain group.
What art is depends on the acceptance as such by a group, 'peer-pressure'/upbringing/identification/wanting-to-be-part-and-not-be-excluded makes individual people accept the 'norm' current in the group. Etc. (there's much to be said on this subject).

So to know whether your work would qualify as fine art, and if so, by whom, you must know what the current 'norm' is. That you do by looking at what is offered and traded as such.
"Conformity" is the big thing*...

Of course, being part of a group already, having been spoon-fed the 'norms' of a certain group, you can always rely on what you think fine art is. That will very probably be not far off from what your fellows think/feel art is.


*
... unless you are so well accepted within a group that they will look at you for guidance. Then, you can actually help set the norm, dictate.
For that you need to acquire 'status'. The really old fashioned way of doing that is by developing a good feel for what people will like, and producing exactly that, hoping an increasing number of your peers will associate you with art, art with you.
The more modern way is through the media. Advertising. Acquiring star status (on any scale).

 

[jotloob]

Simon
In my opinion FINE ART PHOTOGRAPHY does not exist .
But FINE ART PRINTING does . What does that mean for me . ???
I am only talking about B/W . The fine art printing process starts with the exposure of the film , followed by the corresponding development of the film and then print the picture on a photograhpic paper of your choice . Sounds as absolutely normal , but is not . When your work is based on the ZONE SYSTEM , then you know , that it is not just expose and develop , but it is , expose and develop to turn out details in the final picture , which will most likely get lost when you do just "the normal" processing . So that is the ART , to produce an image of your imagination (greyscale) using ZONESYSTEM as a method of enhancing the possibilities our materials (films,developper and paper) give us . These pictures will shurely be better , but whether spectators regard your picture as ART or not , is an other thing . So you see ART and ART can have 2 very different meanings .
So , for me , ART (FINE ART) is the ability to create an "outstanding" image , using my knowledge , brain and hands .

 

[qnu]

Jürgen,

What is it that you are printing that deserves that special treatment? Careful exposure, Zone-system...?

I think your 'fine art printing' has not much to do with art. There are many possible interpretations of what 'art' is (depending on context, mostly.)
But your distinction between two sorts of art presented here really is one between art and craft! Your 'fine art' is craftmanship.

Yes, craftmanship can be admired, much as art is. But it is not art.


Zone system, in my view, is hugely overrated. It is no more than the age old expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights (or vice versa) thing.
As a teaching tool it is great. But even St. Ansel 'cheated' any way he possibly could.

 

[texascowgrower]

I respectfully disagree about fine art being of the "norm". Fine ART engages the viewer, hopefully eliciting an emotional reaction therein. The work does not necessarily have to invoke the reaction that the artist intended, but nevertheless instigates some thought process in the viewer, and the more "outside" the norm a work is, the more readily this goal is accomplished. Most of the more memorable artists of the last century created work that was outside the "norm". Monet, Picasso, Warhol, Hopper and Maplethorp all created work that was VERY different from the norm. This is, IMHO, is the essence of FINE ART. COMMERCIAL ART...work that appeals to the massses, work that buys you the new car, house and camera equitment...is of the "norm"

 

[fernanddo]

Simon and all other members,

First of all, I apologize for my lack of fluency in english, but anyway...

I do believe in fine art photography. IMHO, yes, it does exist, independent of colors, B&W, zone system, photo journalism, street, portrait or whatsoever. If you ask me for a definition of fine art photography, I certainly don't have an objective answer for you. But if you understand it as a concept, you are going to find many answers. The first characteristic of a fine art image, is that the idea the Artist-Photgrapher is trying to convey, is not evident at first sight. The subtleties, by means of lights, shades, contrast, textures, colors temperatures, expressions, moods, aesthetics and many other factors, constitute a fine art image. It is denotative, the artist just insinuates and idea and the observer concludes. This concept extends to the most diverse kind of photogtaphy. Cartier-Bresson did it with photo-journalism and casual street shots. It is not restricted to the B&W world. Take a look into the portfolio of Steve McCurry. Just observe the way he manages colors. I would dare to say that this man is an impressionist painter with a camera in his hands. Give a time to Sebastiao Salgado. After watching his famous work, Exodus - Humanity in Transit - you are going to perceive, that his photography is like a text, it has syntax, he phrases with light in a monochromatic environment.

Doesn't literature admit poetry? Doesn't music has classicals? Why some kind of photography couldn't be expressed as a fine art also?

Simon, if you allow me to say, every time you look into an image with your eyes but only get to see it with your soul, definetely you are in front of a fine art photography!

Thank you very much for reading.
Best Regards,
Fernando.

 

[jotloob]

In many discussion in the last years , private or in photoclubs , i have never ever got a common valid definition , about what ART is . And i am shure , there is no answer which is true for all .
Thats why i said : "For me" , indicating my opinion . Also i did not want to cut the discussion down to B/W . As i am only working in B/W (my colour work is done by a lab) i tried a view from that corner . My B/W pictures are of a much better quality since i am working based on the ZONE SYSTEM . And i am also shure , that Ansel Adams did some cheating , but you must take in consideration , that the quality of our darkroom equipment today has enhanced in quality since . (splitgrade heads for the enlarger and multicontrast barytpaper etc.) . And that gives us far better results . So , if you read my comment carefully , you must recognize that i gave you MY opinion , and i do not want to declare it , as an overall valid definition .
I ask you all , please go on with the discussion . I am pleased to hear more about , what ART is or could be .

 

[simonpg]

Some very interesting "perspecitves" from all.

I was especially interested in Jurgen's comments about printing - it really clicked with me and why some images I see strike me as (to my view and taste) compellingly fine art.

Certainly Adams made that element of the finished artwork something of an art in itself - IMHO, it was his printing that grabs my eyes even when an image may not have been one that I would otherwise pay any special attention to.

However personally I feel that the image "substance" does, all the same, play a role but maybe not a major role.

But I don't take the view that "did some cheating" really matters at all. Whatever the processes during taking the image and post processing it, matters little to me - they are elements of the creative process - how the artist is able to end up what what he was "seeing" and wanted to convey to his audience.

I suppose fine art is like you've all said - the result and how the audience responds to it.

I think QG's comments about the current "norm" certainly influences how broadly an image may be accepted as fine art - what is not fine art today may be fine art on another day.

Nice discussion.

 

[qnu]

Simon,

I really think we must differentiate between craft (what Adams did, what Adam's Zone-system was meant to teach) and art.

Craft is not art, not fine-art too. It is the mastery of a process that converts one physical thing into another physical thing.
Art is indeed confined to substance. Meaning.


By the way:
The 'cheating'-thingy is not meant to say that something reproachable happened, just that the Zone-System is not God's Gift to Photography. It is a structured and systematic represenation of what all photographers were and are doing. Spelling it out, explicitely, makes it a great teaching tool.

But no more than that. It's a bit of an open door, but all rules are meant to be broken. And so Adams did (too. Everybody does). Strict adherence to what Zone system prescribes is more limiting than not knowing about the Zone-system at all (which touches the reason Adams too 'cheated' every way he could).