[cbaytan]

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.

Let's focus on the fine art, forget about commercial things.

You say some people have to be affected by your piece to makes it art, thats correct but it's not a complete question, question should be which people? More correct question is actually should be when? Do you think today does really everybody or a lot of people understands Picasso's messages?

What I mean is, did you know Mozart discovered J.S. Bach 100' years later after he died ? nobody fully understood his works on his time, same goes for the Van Gogh. There comes the importance of the Fine Art critics importance, But today it's better, I believe critics' most important job is speeding up the artefacts understandability by the current society. Because a contemporary fine art piece message is a wholly new message and vision, nobody thought about before. It's just like newly verbalizing a concept which was already there, and nobody thought about şt and named it before.. This message is not has to be a new message to make it a fine art piece, that would still be fine art, but not a contemporary one. So it is possible that a real artist's thematic messages might not be understood by his/her peers for a long time.

[Ray]

What is the difference, if any, between photography as an art and photography as a craft?

If there is a difference, and if "fine art" describes the art of photography at its finest, then would it be useful to coin the term "fine craft" (i.e. craft at its finest)?

AND if there are any real differences between "art" and "craft", then at what point do they meet or overlap?

Just a few qustions to keep the debate simmering.

[magkelly]

I'm not knocking commercial photography or journalistic photography but I think that while every day photography the kind you see in fashion magazines and in the newspaper all the time can transcend those labels and actually be art I think real art photography reaches people in a different place than most commercial photography aspires to.

Good example? The Young Afghan Girl by Steve McCurry which clearly was meant to be a journalistic, documentary photograph but is just so far beyond that in terms of scope and reach. That portrait IMHO is photographic fine art in every sense of the word and the emotional connection that it's made with people around the world over the years clearly shows that it's more than "just" another photo in a popular magazine.

Seeing that girl's face is not unlike seeing a powerful Vermeer portrait. It just reaches out and grabs you and once you've seen it you never quite forget it. It's not just technique or the lighting, the colors, or even the choice of subject. There's something more there that captures your imagination and that causes that particularly image to linger in the mind and in the heart.

That's real art to me. That ability to use light, shadow, etc, in such a way as to make you forever connected to something. Whenever I see that photo, something about it makes me just want to stare at it for a good long while, maybe even take a copy of it home with me and put it on my own wall so I can have a bit of that experience again whenever I look at it.

Most commercial photography just doesn't touch me in that way. I think some of it is awfully good, technically speaking, and I enjoy it, for what it is, but it's photographs like these that make the difference between stuff like that and something more significant.

For the record, I think a lot of supposed fine art photography is just pretentious bull. I've walked into museums filled with supposedly brilliant photographic works that to me look far more like they'd more suitably belong more on the bathroom wall in a mall than they do in a fine art museum. I happen to think that true art photography is a lot more difficult than throwing blue paint on a nude model, putting a tulip in her mouth and posing her on a carved ball or some such similar maneuver.

I often like both, commercial and art photography, but I'm very cynical about what is considered "fine art" by those who can afford to decide what it is and to actually buy it. I've seen far too many "fine art" exhibits where someone does something totally underwhelming and yet is called "brilliant" by the art critics. The way I see it, if the average 5 year old could pick up a camera and could take that picture and if the emotional impact of said picture reflects that possibility?

No way it's "fine art" no matter who is judging it.

There has to be something more complex there in terms of composition, and impact to truly make it art to me. It has to stay with me for some reason even after I've walked away from it to rate that distinction. Otherwise it's just a nicely recorded image like a million others....

[cbaytan]

What is the difference, if any, between photography as an art and photography as a craft?

If there is a difference, and if "fine art" describes the art of photography at its finest, then would it be useful to coin the term "fine craft" (i.e. craft at its finest)?

AND if there are any real differences between "art" and "craft", then at what point do they meet or overlap?

Just a few qustions to keep the debate simmering.

Craft is craft, if you are skilled it's craft, if you your job on it's best it's art, like a top shoe maker makes art.

But fine art id different from art, The word "fine" confuses you, it does NOT mean a making the art at it's best, at top, like a fine job. But we are using the word "art" as similar to "fine art" here, not as craft art.

Fine arts description I gave you before, let the wiki speaks I am lazy to type:
----------
"Fine art or the fine arts describes an art form developed primarily for aesthetics and/or concept rather than practical application. Art is often a synonym for fine art, as employed in the term "art gallery".[1]

Historically, the five greater fine arts were painting, sculpture, architecture, music and poetry, with minor arts including drama and dancing.[2] Today, the fine arts commonly include visual and performing art forms, such as painting, sculpture, installation, Calligraphy, music, dance, theatre, architecture, photography and printmaking. However, in some institutes of learning or in museums fine art, and frequently the term fine arts (pl.) as well, are associated exclusively with visual art forms."
------------

Me again: Yes traditionally there are 6 classic *art* forms, and some more interdisciplinary ones like cinematography, which includes theatre, literature and music. Actually wikipediea fails to give 6 old classic arts dogma.

Where is photography in fine arts, it's in painting, Photography is a painting or drawing technique with light. Photo-Graphy, see?

You make the photographs, not take it. -Ansel Adams-.

[cbaytan]

I'm not knocking commercial photography or journalistic photography but I think that while every day photography the kind you see in fashion magazines and in the newspaper all the time can transcend those labels and actually be art I think real art photography reaches people in a different place than most commercial photography aspires to.

No, commercial photography gives a public service, mostly for money, fine art photography has on ti's thematic message from the artist. It's like public bus driver and F-1 driver difference.

I've walked into museums filled with supposedly brilliant photographic works that to me look far more like they'd more suitably belong more on the bathroom wall in a mall than they do in a fine art museum.

Art has a new message in it's theme to the world, to all time societies, it's timeless, (see my art description above post) and it hasn't have to be good looking or beautiful, and your (todays society I mean) aesthetic values are not universal, how much trained yourself on fine art and aesthetics is another question. Also for instance I personally do not like or understand every fine art form, I wouldn't put them in my house either, unless for selling it.

Fine Art has no care about looking good or being beautiful to todays society, it is a message for all times with aesthetic values: Wiki has a good aesthetic description&article for beginners:
Aesthetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The way I see it, if the average 5 year old could pick up a camera and could take that picture and if the emotional impact of said picture reflects that possibility?

Yes weird but true, a true fine art piece can be made by accident too.

Regards.

[Chiroptera]

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.

This is an extremely shallow view of what fine art photography can and cannot be. The idea that there aren't very many people in fine art photography, aside from female nudes, is totally false and only lends to the idea that you don't know what you're talking about. Go look through the work of Alfred Stieglitz, Henri Cartier-Bresson, or Eduard Boubat. (A simple google image search of their last name will suffice.) These are just three photographers, off the top of my head, who were experts at capturing real life through the camera. If you choose to look through some literature you will find countless more.

You seem to have extraordinarily solid opinions on the topic, yet you seem to know so little about it. There is nothing pretentious about fine art photography; unless you consider pushing yourself forward to find new ways of creative expression and communication, through re-representation with a camera, pretentious. If that's the case I wouldn't call you much a photographer at all.

[magkelly]

Ever read that story about how John Lennon first met Yoko Ono? He went to one of her shows, got up on a ladder picked up a note that said something like "yes" and that was it. That was an example of her (much lauded at the time) "fine art" on exhibition.

I don't mean to insult all fine art, but some of it, IMHO, it's just not nearly the "great thing" it's cracked up to be, and yeah, I do get what the "artist" is trying to say, most of the time. I'm not a complete dimwit, but I do sometimes question why someone like say Yoko Ono can be considered a "fine artist" when there are so many more people out there who's work really manages to mean so much more.

I mean that black typed "yes" on a standard white card, that's really major art? Aw, come on, no offense to Ms Ono, but I just don't think so. Stuff like that it just makes me want to laugh it's so not "art" to me. I saw something similar hanging in the MOMA. One black dab of paint on a large canvas of white, a little red square on the bottom. My guess it was supposed to make you think all about how wonderful and provoking opposite shapes and minimalism are, and I'm sure the price tag on that piece reflected it's lofty purpose, but to me that was just a waste of a good wall space. "I" could put a black dot in the middle of a white canvas, say this means that and do the same, and I'm not by any means a fame worthy artist. To me that's "mall" bathroom worthy art because that's how easy, boring and completely uninspiring it truly is.

Yet, there are some people out there who'd gladly pay Ono 10K for that one little card with a word written on it?

Go figure that....

[johnmflores]

Ever read that story about how John Lennon first met Yoko Ono? He went to one of her shows, got up on a ladder picked up a note that said something like "yes" and that was it. That was an example of her (much lauded at the time) "fine art" on exhibition.

I don't mean to insult all fine art, but some of it, IMHO, it's just not nearly the "great thing" it's cracked up to be, and yeah, I do get what the "artist" is trying to say, most of the time. I'm not a complete dimwit, but I do sometimes question why someone like say Yoko Ono can be considered a "fine artist" when there are so many more people out there who's work really manages to mean so much more.

I mean that black typed "yes" on a standard white card, that's really major art? Aw, come on, no offense to Ms Ono, but I just don't think so. Stuff like that it just makes me want to laugh it's so not "art" to me. I saw something similar hanging in the MOMA. One black dab of paint on a large canvas of white, a little red square on the bottom. My guess it was supposed to make you think all about how wonderful and provoking opposite shapes and minimalism are, and I'm sure the price tag on that piece reflected it's lofty purpose, but to me that was just a waste of a good wall space. "I" could put a black dot in the middle of a white canvas, say this means that and do the same, and I'm not by any means a fame worthy artist. To me that's "mall" bathroom worthy art because that's how easy, boring and completely uninspiring it truly is.

Yet, there are some people out there who'd gladly pay Ono 10K for that one little card with a word written on it?

Go figure that....

Fine Art : Commercial Art :: Scientists : Engineers

Much like scientists are encouraged to push to the edge of our knowledge, slowly but surely expanding our understanding of the universe, artists are encouraged to continually question and look for new ways to express ideas.

Does Yoko Ono's performance art make sense to normal folk? No, but neither does the atom smashing happening at CERN Large Hadron Collider. It's up to another group of people - engineers - to figure out how to apply what the scientists learns. Who knows, it may eventually lead to improved nuclear power or even fusion.

And so it is with commercial artists. They go to the galleries and museums and shows and get ideas that end up in illustrations and photos and commercials.

[Chiroptera]

Much like scientists are encouraged to push to the edge of our knowledge, slowly but surely expanding our understanding of the universe, artists are encouraged to continually question and look for new ways to express ideas.

This is a great point and can't be stressed enough. When you go to galleries that are pushing a lot of new ideas about art they aren't trying to sell you something that you want to hang on your wall. Art isn't always about an aesthetically pleasing object, and sometimes it's not even about an object at all (i.e. performance art.)

I don't mean to insult all fine art, but some of it, IMHO, it's just not nearly the "great thing" it's cracked up to be, and yeah, I do get what the "artist" is trying to say, most of the time. I'm not a complete dimwit, but I do sometimes question why someone like say Yoko Ono can be considered a "fine artist" when there are so many more people out there who's work really manages to mean so much more.

This is also a really good statement. Contemporary art, in many forms, is about pushing ideas on how we communicate and interact with our social environment. It's great that people want to understand a piece or movement of art right away, but that's like saying you want to understand graduate level Philosophy and English theory right away. You're not a dimwit for not understanding something that you haven't dedicated a large portion of your life studying.

It's also good that you are questioning why someone like Yoko Ono can be considered an artist, but you really have to follow that up and read a bit of literature if you do want to understand why. This doesn't mean your own opinion isn't important - it's the most important part of art appreciation. But of course an opinion that is well versed in contemporary fine art theory and vocabulary is simply going to get something different out of the art.

Yeah some art is trash, it really is. (I probably think 25-50% of the art I see isn't all that great.) A piece of work doesn't have to meet some sort of global standard to be called 'art.' There are great pieces of art and horrible pieces of art. The main point is to continue to learn about why something are considered to be good art.

There's also the money/'art stock' and how the global art market can affect the price of a piece of work regardless of it's inherent artistic merit. This is an entirely different can of worms though - but in short you shouldn't judge a piece of art based upon the price tag that is on it.

[cbaytan]

This is also a really good statement. Contemporary art, in many forms, is about pushing ideas on how we communicate and interact with our social environment. It's great that people want to understand a piece or movement of art right away, but that's like saying you want to understand graduate level Philosophy and English theory right away. You're not a dimwit for not understanding something that you haven't dedicated a large portion of your life studying.

Very good definition of understanding the art process, but I guess you forgot our interactions with nature.

Yeah some art is trash, it really is. (I probably think 25-50% of the art I see isn't all that great.) A piece of work doesn't have to meet some sort of global standard to be called 'art.' There are great pieces of art and horrible pieces of art. The main point is to continue to learn about why something are considered to be good art.

True fine art can not be trash, bad samples you've seen are the didn't go through from the elimination process of the fine art yet, it's a quite time consuming process, also some non-bona fide curators and critics have some friends and got needs you know.

[Chiroptera]

Very good definition of understanding the art process, but I guess you forgot our interactions with nature.


True fine art can not be trash, bad samples you've seen are the didn't go through from the elimination process of the fine art yet, it's a quite time consuming process, also some non-bona fide curators and critics have some friends and got needs you know.

I would personally argue that our interaction (or our lack of) with nature falls under the category of social and environmental structures. But then we are just arguing over semantics.

However I am pretty firm in my belief that even fine art has to have some sort of spectrum of quality. You could show me a piece of what you consider to be fine art and if my opinion considers it to be trash then where are we? You believe this to be a true piece of fine art and therefore it cannot be trash; yet I believe it is trash and I also believe it qualifies as fine art. A horrible argument (that really will go no where) that gives no credit to the discursive qualities of the piece in question.

For example, my personal opinion of pollock's work (and most modern works) is pretty negative. But I think it would be pretty hard to discount the validity of his work and contribution to the contemporary art world.

[cbaytan]

I would personally argue that our interaction (or our lack of) with nature falls under the category of social and environmental structures. But then we are just arguing over semantics.

However I am pretty firm in my belief that even fine art has to have some sort of spectrum of quality. You could show me a piece of what you consider to be fine art and if my opinion considers it to be trash then where are we? You believe this to be a true piece of fine art and therefore it cannot be trash; yet I believe it is trash and I also believe it qualifies as fine art. A horrible argument (that really will go no where) that gives no credit to the discursive qualities of the piece in question.

For example, my personal opinion of pollock's work (and most modern works) is pretty negative. But I think it would be pretty hard to discount the validity of his work and contribution to the contemporary art world.

Agreed,

But about Jackson Pollock work I am assuming you are into abstract painting arts, two things apply:

1- Your statement:

It's great that people want to understand a piece or movement of art right away, but that's like saying you want to understand graduate level Philosophy and English theory right away. You're not a dimwit for not understanding something that you haven't dedicated a large portion of your life studying.

2-Pollock's works really suck. Dim chance.

In fact I believe Pollock is an inventor of a unique painting technique, in its essence. Giving uncompleted works and expect to complete his work by educated and also enthusiastic eyes&brains. Like a canvas with few brush strokes. Pollock is doing this negatively, expecting eyes will subtract things and complete the art work, so it's a plastic art work, works for every individual differently from every culture. Brilliant.

[magkelly]

Some people think this guy creates "fine art" worthy of display in museums. I say his paintings are okay, even sometimes rather nice for commercial art, but that there's no way one of his paintings actually belongs hanging next to say, a Renoir. In someone's house, over the mantle, as a compliment to the room's color scheme and style of decor, maybe. But definitely not in the Louvre, the Met, etc.

The Official Thomas Kinkade Website

I've looked at a few prints of his paintings, seen actual paintings of his in a local gallery that sold some of his work for a while and while I actually liked his use of the light, they in no way had the visual or emotional impact on me that seeing my first real master painter did.

My first Renoir, my first Van Gogh, those just totally blew my mind for hours after. It wasn't at all what I was expecting from seeing prints at all. It was so much MORE. Thomas Kinkaid? Literally, all I thought was "Well, that would be rather pretty hanging over the john..."

[brofkand]

Art for art's sake. Not art for sale, not art for documentary, not art for praise or worship, not art for anything but art.

That is fine art. Photography is art just as painting is art.

[johnmflores]

There's a bigger question here that's not being asked - is photography art? Take the best photograph from the best photographer that you can think of and place it next to a Picasso or a Van Gogh - how does the photograph fare?

It's a bit of a loaded question in a camera forum, but isn't it telling that nearly all of the examples that are being cited in this thread are painters, not photographers?