What is "fine art" photography

Ray · 09-22-2010, 03:04 PM

I have come across the term "fine art" photography being used increasingly more frequently over the last decade by a range of photographers.

What qualifies as "fine art" photography?

What is it about the art being created that makes it "fine"?

Is the term of value in any meaningful way, or is it simply a marketing device for photographers?

In short, I am trying to pin down exactly what "fine art" photography is?

Last edited by MRRiley; 09-26-2010 at 07:02 AM. Reason: no need for ALL RED text

soppy · 09-22-2010, 03:26 PM

Please change your text from being bright red... It is rather painful to read.

On that note, I feel like it is any photography that is done for no other reason than for the art of it. Like, if you shoot a wedding, that isn't really fine art, that's more of capturing memories in an artful form. On the other hand, taking a photo of a flower or a sunset is more fine art because you are taking the photo for no particular reason other than it looks cool. I suppose "fine" is a word thrown in there to juice things up more than anything though.

hcarvalhoalves · 09-22-2010, 03:50 PM

When you talk about "fine art" in photograhpy, you're talking about photography for the sake of art - instead of documental photography, where the photo is just the media used to transmit information.

It's hard to define where to draw the line, but everytime photography is being exercised as the end activity itself, you can say it's fine art.

Fine art - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

stanleyk · 09-22-2010, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by soppy

Please change your text from being bright red... It is rather painful to read.

On that note, I feel like it is any photography that is done for no other reason than for the art of it. Like, if you shoot a wedding, that isn't really fine art, that's more of capturing memories in an artful form. On the other hand, taking a photo of a flower or a sunset is more fine art because you are taking the photo for no particular reason other than it looks cool. I suppose "fine" is a word thrown in there to juice things up more than anything though.

Agree on both points especially the red font....... William Eggelston is a fine art photographer. Ansel Adams is a fine art photographer. Richard Avedon would be an example of someone whose work aspires to both. Diane Arbus supported her art photography by doing fashion shoots. A lot of fine art photographers do paid work but it's not their raison d'etre.

alohadave · 09-22-2010, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Ray

Is the term of value in any meaningful way, or is it simply a marketing device for photographers?

It's a marketing term to indicate that the photographer has set out to create photographic art, as opposed to editorial, PJ, or commercial.

It was originally coined by Ansel Adams and his contemporaries to try to get the art community to take photography seriously as an art form.

RioRico · 09-22-2010, 08:37 PM - **1 Like**

FINE ART photography is much like other FINE ART endeavours -- boring, pretentious, boring, uninspired, boring, technically arrogant, boring, etc... at least per many of the self-styled FINE ART practitioners I have suffered. You'll note that most FINE ART photography does not include images of people. Exception: female nudes, which are FINE ART when they're not explicit pr0n. Other exception: foreign peoples in exotic attire, as little of it as possible.

For example: After a long international journey upon which shutters were tripped many times, my other sorts through the images to select a set for illustrated talks before a local travel club. I work long and hard at PP to create many FINE ART images. My other selects a couple hundred pictures... NOT ONE OF WHICH are any of my FINE ART images. Why not? Because they are boring. It's the photojournalistic shots of people in places that are of interest, not my pretentious crap. I agree with the selections because I'm not a total moron; I too can see what's of interest to audiences and what isn't.

FINE ART photography is like masturbation. It's fun, but don't get caught at it.

**jpzk** · 09-22-2010, 08:54 PM

Quote:

FINE ART photography is like masturbation. It's fun, but don't get caught at it.

I take it that Fine Arts photographers will be offended?

To me, it doesn't really matter as long as I get a "Wow" effect from someone's photographs, especially if they can turn a very boring subject into something very interesting visually.

Examples are many, such as this one:
(I use this example because of my passion for bird photography)

You have a perfectly exposed and framed image of a Golden Eagle, National Geo quality; eyes are very sharp, plumage is so detailed that you can almost touch it, colours are true .... etc.
Problem is: it's just the bird .... nothing else.
What about the habitat, the surroundings, the "action", the light ... ?
For me, I need "more" than just the principal subject. I need to "feel" the life.

It probably isn't what most people would call "Fine Arts Photography" but that is the way I see it.

It could be just a chair, a manhole! ... as long as one can feel the photographer's own feelings, we have a truly artistic rendition of a subject.

My tens-cents!

Cheers.

JP

**Kerrowdown** · 09-23-2010, 08:02 AM

At one point it meant, naughty bits hidden on nude works.

Ray · 09-23-2010, 01:47 PM

Thanks for the responses so far.

When does photography become "fine art"?

Some definitions of "fine art" seem to touch on the fact that it is defined as such if the photographer has "artistic" intentions. BUT what is it about these intentions that make them "fine"?

Sometimes it may refer to the process involved in producing an image, from capturing the image straight through post production to eventually showing the image to a wider public. Any thoughts on this, that "fine art" describes a process?

I've also come across the suggestion that "fine art" photography can only be produced by photographers who have built up credentials that have allowed them to enter the world of profesional artists. These credentials usually take the form of qualifications or they may take the form of contacts. Either way, it appears that the world of professional "fine art" photography has become so [institutionalised that it is very difficult and almost impossible to enter this world of "fine art" (and/or professional) photography purely on merit.

johnmflores · 09-23-2010, 02:14 PM

It's the stuff my editor won't publish!

**jpzk** · 09-23-2010, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Ray

Thanks for the responses so far.

When does photography become "fine art"?

Some definitions of "fine art" seem to touch on the fact that it is defined as such if the photographer has "artistic" intentions. BUT what is it about these intentions that make them "fine"?

Sometimes it may refer to the process involved in producing an image, from capturing the image straight through post production to eventually showing the image to a wider public. Any thoughts on this, that "fine art" describes a process?

I've also come across the suggestion that "fine art" photography can only be produced by photographers who have built up credentials that have allowed them to enter the world of profesional artists. These credentials usually take the form of qualifications or they may take the form of contacts. Either way, it appears that the world of professional "fine art" photography has become so [institutionalised that it is very difficult and almost impossible to enter this world of "fine art" (and/or professional) photography purely on merit.

Ray!

This red lettering is killing my ol'eyes!!!

Nice posts though ... presentation remains to be discussed ... no hard feelings!

Cheers.

JP

cbaytan · 09-24-2010, 10:50 PM

Simple:

Fine Art is an artefact which contains artist's unexpected or "unknown before" or "different from society" message in it's theme. The message must contain different vision/perception of the piece of the universe with , from the rest of the society, in fact from all humanity.

If given message is never given before it's contemporary Art.

It's a long story we talk about but to make short, Fine art is a different perception, and maybe different solution containing message. Different from who? from everybody.

There are some other conditions like aesthetic exuberation, publishing and durability.

Cheers.

P.S. Your fonts are giving hardship to read to me too.

**jbinpg** · 09-24-2010, 11:45 PM

Best definition I have seen of Fine Art is: something you would hang on your wall.

cbaytan · 09-25-2010, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by jbinpg

Best definition I have seen of Fine Art is: something you would hang on your wall.

Beautiful is not always Fine Art, for an aesthetic exuberance and message given art can be sometime gross, ill at ease too. You might not want to hang'em your wall unless you wish an ego boost

philbaum · 09-25-2010, 11:55 AM

Commerical galleries have this definition of fine art that its any media thats been accepted into a gallery

But i suggest we not let the commercial world define art for the rest of us.

I like some of the definitions above. To be successful art, i think a piece has to have the ability to touch the emotions of a significant number of people. Its not enough if a piece is intellectually put together in a correct way, if there isn't an emotional experience, it doesn't seem to me that its art.

I've only been taking photographs seriously since 2007, taken way too many photographs (i won't tell you how many), but a few of them are very good indeed. And i don't particularly trust my own opinion, if they don't sell, or i don't get good feedback from other photoclub members, i come to the logical conclusion that piece doesn't have broad appeal and may not be so "fine art". anyway, thats my opinion.

There are many photographic books that talk about composition, not how to operate your camera. Get some of those composition books if you want to learn about what works as fine art.

09-22-2010, 03:04 PM	#1
Ray Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: UK Posts: 9	What is "fine art" photography I have come across the term "fine art" photography being used increasingly more frequently over the last decade by a range of photographers. What qualifies as "fine art" photography? What is it about the art being created that makes it "fine"? Is the term of value in any meaningful way, or is it simply a marketing device for photographers? In short, I am trying to pin down exactly what "fine art" photography is? Last edited by MRRiley; 09-26-2010 at 07:02 AM. Reason: no need for ALL RED text

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New website - fine art landscape photography - need your feedback	José Ramos	Photographic Industry and Professionals	12	05-30-2010 08:14 PM
"You Picked a Fine Time to Lead Us, Barack"	wlank	General Talk	19	04-04-2010 11:24 AM
Landscape "Soul Searching" - long exposure fine art	José Ramos	Post Your Photos!	12	03-26-2010 04:01 AM
The scene I'd been waiting for for a long time ("auto art" from street lighting)	m8o	Photo Critique	7	11-03-2008 09:24 PM
k20D "fine sharpness" SUCKS! Too much noise!	rburgoss	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	06-22-2008 06:59 AM

09-22-2010, 03:26 PM	#2
soppy Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Gainesville Posts: 347	Please change your text from being bright red... It is rather painful to read. On that note, I feel like it is any photography that is done for no other reason than for the art of it. Like, if you shoot a wedding, that isn't really fine art, that's more of capturing memories in an artful form. On the other hand, taking a photo of a flower or a sunset is more fine art because you are taking the photo for no particular reason other than it looks cool. I suppose "fine" is a word thrown in there to juice things up more than anything though.

09-22-2010, 03:50 PM	#3
hcarvalhoalves Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: São Paulo, Brazil Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,019	When you talk about "fine art" in photograhpy, you're talking about photography for the sake of art - instead of documental photography, where the photo is just the media used to transmit information. It's hard to define where to draw the line, but everytime photography is being exercised as the end activity itself, you can say it's fine art. Fine art - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

09-22-2010, 03:52 PM	#4
stanleyk Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Taylor, Texas Posts: 1,018	Originally posted by soppy Please change your text from being bright red... It is rather painful to read. On that note, I feel like it is any photography that is done for no other reason than for the art of it. Like, if you shoot a wedding, that isn't really fine art, that's more of capturing memories in an artful form. On the other hand, taking a photo of a flower or a sunset is more fine art because you are taking the photo for no particular reason other than it looks cool. I suppose "fine" is a word thrown in there to juice things up more than anything though. Agree on both points especially the red font....... William Eggelston is a fine art photographer. Ansel Adams is a fine art photographer. Richard Avedon would be an example of someone whose work aspires to both. Diane Arbus supported her art photography by doing fashion shoots. A lot of fine art photographers do paid work but it's not their raison d'etre.

09-22-2010, 04:57 PM	#5
alohadave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Quincy, MA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,024	Originally posted by Ray Is the term of value in any meaningful way, or is it simply a marketing device for photographers? It's a marketing term to indicate that the photographer has set out to create photographic art, as opposed to editorial, PJ, or commercial. It was originally coined by Ansel Adams and his contemporaries to try to get the art community to take photography seriously as an art form.

09-22-2010, 08:37 PM - 1 Like	#6
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	FINE ART photography is much like other FINE ART endeavours -- boring, pretentious, boring, uninspired, boring, technically arrogant, boring, etc... at least per many of the self-styled FINE ART practitioners I have suffered. You'll note that most FINE ART photography does not include images of people. Exception: female nudes, which are FINE ART when they're not explicit pr0n. Other exception: foreign peoples in exotic attire, as little of it as possible. For example: After a long international journey upon which shutters were tripped many times, my other sorts through the images to select a set for illustrated talks before a local travel club. I work long and hard at PP to create many FINE ART images. My other selects a couple hundred pictures... NOT ONE OF WHICH are any of my FINE ART images. Why not? Because they are boring. It's the photojournalistic shots of people in places that are of interest, not my pretentious crap. I agree with the selections because I'm not a total moron; I too can see what's of interest to audiences and what isn't. FINE ART photography is like masturbation. It's fun, but don't get caught at it.

09-22-2010, 08:54 PM	#7
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Quote: FINE ART photography is like masturbation. It's fun, but don't get caught at it. I take it that Fine Arts photographers will be offended? To me, it doesn't really matter as long as I get a "Wow" effect from someone's photographs, especially if they can turn a very boring subject into something very interesting visually. Examples are many, such as this one: (I use this example because of my passion for bird photography) You have a perfectly exposed and framed image of a Golden Eagle, National Geo quality; eyes are very sharp, plumage is so detailed that you can almost touch it, colours are true .... etc. Problem is: it's just the bird .... nothing else. What about the habitat, the surroundings, the "action", the light ... ? For me, I need "more" than just the principal subject. I need to "feel" the life. It probably isn't what most people would call "Fine Arts Photography" but that is the way I see it. It could be just a chair, a manhole! ... as long as one can feel the photographer's own feelings, we have a truly artistic rendition of a subject. My tens-cents! Cheers. JP

09-23-2010, 08:02 AM	#8
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,804	At one point it meant, naughty bits hidden on nude works.

09-23-2010, 01:47 PM	#9
Ray Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: UK Posts: 9 Original Poster	Thanks for the responses so far. When does photography become "fine art"? Some definitions of "fine art" seem to touch on the fact that it is defined as such if the photographer has "artistic" intentions. BUT what is it about these intentions that make them "fine"? Sometimes it may refer to the process involved in producing an image, from capturing the image straight through post production to eventually showing the image to a wider public. Any thoughts on this, that "fine art" describes a process? I've also come across the suggestion that "fine art" photography can only be produced by photographers who have built up credentials that have allowed them to enter the world of profesional artists. These credentials usually take the form of qualifications or they may take the form of contacts. Either way, it appears that the world of professional "fine art" photography has become so [institutionalised that it is very difficult and almost impossible to enter this world of "fine art" (and/or professional) photography purely on merit.

09-23-2010, 02:14 PM	#10
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	It's the stuff my editor won't publish!

09-23-2010, 02:19 PM	#11
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Originally posted by Ray Thanks for the responses so far. When does photography become "fine art"? Some definitions of "fine art" seem to touch on the fact that it is defined as such if the photographer has "artistic" intentions. BUT what is it about these intentions that make them "fine"? Sometimes it may refer to the process involved in producing an image, from capturing the image straight through post production to eventually showing the image to a wider public. Any thoughts on this, that "fine art" describes a process? I've also come across the suggestion that "fine art" photography can only be produced by photographers who have built up credentials that have allowed them to enter the world of profesional artists. These credentials usually take the form of qualifications or they may take the form of contacts. Either way, it appears that the world of professional "fine art" photography has become so [institutionalised that it is very difficult and almost impossible to enter this world of "fine art" (and/or professional) photography purely on merit. Ray! This red lettering is killing my ol'eyes!!! Nice posts though ... presentation remains to be discussed ... no hard feelings! Cheers. JP

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-24-2010, 10:50 PM	#12
cbaytan Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Trabzon/Turkey Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,010	Simple: Fine Art is an artefact which contains artist's unexpected or "unknown before" or "different from society" message in it's theme. The message must contain different vision/perception of the piece of the universe with , from the rest of the society, in fact from all humanity. If given message is never given before it's contemporary Art. It's a long story we talk about but to make short, Fine art is a different perception, and maybe different solution containing message. Different from who? from everybody. There are some other conditions like aesthetic exuberation, publishing and durability. Cheers. P.S. Your fonts are giving hardship to read to me too.

09-24-2010, 11:45 PM	#13
jbinpg Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Prince George, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,546	Best definition I have seen of Fine Art is: something you would hang on your wall.

09-25-2010, 12:20 AM	#14
cbaytan Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Trabzon/Turkey Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,010	Originally posted by jbinpg Best definition I have seen of Fine Art is: something you would hang on your wall. Beautiful is not always Fine Art, for an aesthetic exuberance and message given art can be sometime gross, ill at ease too. You might not want to hang'em your wall unless you wish an ego boost

09-25-2010, 11:55 AM	#15
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Commerical galleries have this definition of fine art that its any media thats been accepted into a gallery But i suggest we not let the commercial world define art for the rest of us. I like some of the definitions above. To be successful art, i think a piece has to have the ability to touch the emotions of a significant number of people. Its not enough if a piece is intellectually put together in a correct way, if there isn't an emotional experience, it doesn't seem to me that its art. I've only been taking photographs seriously since 2007, taken way too many photographs (i won't tell you how many), but a few of them are very good indeed. And i don't particularly trust my own opinion, if they don't sell, or i don't get good feedback from other photoclub members, i come to the logical conclusion that piece doesn't have broad appeal and may not be so "fine art". anyway, thats my opinion. There are many photographic books that talk about composition, not how to operate your camera. Get some of those composition books if you want to learn about what works as fine art.