Definition of "Fine Art"?

[Nigels]

Just pondering (in a quiet moment) just what is the definition of "Fine Art".

Are there a set of parameters that make a print I produce a fine art print or is it just an arbitary form of snobbery?

[Nigels]

Had a look at wiki where there seems to be a trend to regard fine art photography as the realisation of the photographers creative vision as opposed to a commercial motive.
This would make most of the photogarphy appearing at camera clubs up and down the countrty fine art photography! It would also mean we could create fine art photographs just as easily with a camera phone as with LF film!
In the end does any of this really matter?
(just thinking allowed I suppose) - any comments?

[Paul Dunning]

The wiki also tries to define the word ‘fine’…

“The word "fine" does not so much denote the quality of the artwork in question, but the purity of the discipline”

…and given that then I would say you can’t get much purer than LF film photography. Then again I guess I might argue that other photographic tools, i.e. digital, are disciplines in their own right and so it’s possible to be pure to them and hence produce ‘fine art’. Personally I tend to judge the final image and not the tools and process used to produce it and if it ends up with a nice print that's good to look at then that's 'fine' by me

Like you, just thinking allowed, I really have no idea
Paul.

[Marizu]

It would also mean we could create fine art photographs just as easily with a camera phone as with LF film!

I would agree with that.

I have seen some of Wolfgang Tillmans' work in exhibition and museums which I can only assume has been done on a camera phone. I wouldn't personally think of them as 'fine art prints' but rather, 'fine art photography.'
Take a look at Thomas Ruff's Jpegs series (I'm not sure if this is adult content so be careful. He also did some work with appropriated adult imagery which I might be getting mixed up with).

I suspect that there may be two slightly different terms being discussed here.
One is the 'fine art print,' which appears to be largely related to, or inspired by, the darkroom printer's craft, traditions and values.
The other is 'fine art photography,' which seems to either refer to photographs printed in the above manner or, conversely, to a contemporary/conceptual photographic approach which values the expression of ideas over aesthetic and technical prowess.

There is a lot to enjoy and experience from all camps.

[timparkin]

My guess is that it implies that the work has been done for no other purpose than itself; which discounts most fine artists who do it to make money and hence are influenced by these pressures.... Fine art means a disconnect with the external hence no taking photographs because you think they'll do well on flickr or at the camera club, no photos because they will look good on the wall etc..

I'm guessing - it doesn't really matter to anyone unless they think they know what it means..

[Rob Cole]

One mans 'fine art' is another mans snapshot.

Essentially it is a form of self-aggrandisement by some photographers to elevate their photography to a higher plane of artistic accomplishment. They are trying to suggest that their photographic results are the haute couture, the cordon bleu, the Rolls Royce of the art form. In most cases it's either a complete delusion or a marketing ploy.

Another affectation of those self-describing themselves as 'fine art' photographers is the necessity to provide an artists statement on their website (reaches for the sick bag ...).

A similar discussion took place on the LFPF a short while ago where a common view seemed to be that if it's a colour photograph it cannot be considered 'fine art' ... go figure!

To my mind such an accolade as 'fine art' is one for the beholder to bestow on the work not the photographer.

Rob

[timparkin]

Don't forget to ask what 'award winning' means (which normally comes before - 'fine art')

[Charles Twist]

Hello Nigel,

Fine art can be given expedient definitions but to make the parts criticism-proof is harder.

Doesn't "fine" art imply some refinement? This ties in with idea of purity above. I would say that refinement is a work process which requires discipline to continue with it, especially since one can continue refining until the cows come home. So a CCTV or a child playing will take accidental snaps, while a more mature artist (inc photographer) will remember x,y,z in the elaboration of a,b,c. The fine bit is quite straightforward in that sense, even if you could debate what should be refined - art or craft. But since we're talking fine art, we'll leave the craft out of it. So bring on your cell phones.

The art bit is a lot less straightforward, and I am not going to even bother attemting to define it as so much as already been said. It's about beauty, subject, self-validation, exploration, and the list goes on. I would venture to suggest that some art is created with an end in mind, unlike what Tim P says about a "disconnect". Is making an art object in order to achieve a personal vision really that different to achieving someone else's vision? In both case, you're working for somebody who has defined a brief. Unless you're realising a stream of consciousness, but I would put that on a par with the CCTV for maturity & elaboration.

In the last 100 years, a lot of fine art has been about rhetorical questions and navel-gazing, about understanding the limitations of its very own definition. It arrived at that from first being about satisfying a client - often the Church and aristocracy; thence being about exploring the human condition; thence being about declaring emotions (all in grossly simplistic terms). The goal posts have moved a fair bit. As we look back on the work of the past, we are bestowing "greatness" on those objects that conform with the ideas of our own period. It doesn't have to be so.

Happy thinking!
Charles

[timparkin]

...
The art bit is a lot less straightforward, and I am not going to even bother attemting to define it as so much as already been said. It's about beauty, subject, self-validation, exploration, and the list goes on. I would venture to suggest that some art is created with an end in mind, unlike what Tim P says about a "disconnect". Is making an art object in order to achieve a personal vision really that different to achieving someone else's vision? In both case, you're working for somebody who has defined a brief. Unless you're realising a stream of consciousness, but I would put that on a par with the CCTV for maturity & elaboration.
..

I wasn't implying a black and white division between "is" and "isn't", and I would say that art created for the church (for instance) is less worthy of the name than art that is created purely to sublime an internal vision. But that's the great thing about the english language, I can have my own definition of art and if I can convince enough people then I'm right

Tim

[dennis]

Black & White photography magazine seems to spend a lot of its pages to promoting Lomo & phone photography which looks pretty much to me like the stuff I used to get from a cardboard Kodak box camera when I was a mere lad. I never thought then of promoting it - maybe I missed out on fame? Dennis.

[Charles Twist]

I wasn't implying a black and white division between "is" and "isn't", and I would say that art created for the church (for instance) is less worthy of the name than art that is created purely to sublime an internal vision.

How romantic!

It's funny how that stance has lasted through from the early 19th century. I know you're not being manicheistic, but commissioned work does sometimes rise above the brief, and sometimes it has to wait a while before something in it resonates with the present.

...if I can convince enough people then I'm right

Tim

That's true generally.

Regards,
Charles

[timparkin]

How romantic!

It's funny how that stance has lasted through from the early 19th century. I know you're not being manicheistic, but commissioned work does sometimes rise above the brief, and sometimes it has to wait a while before something in it resonates with the present.

Well I do wonder how much art appreciation is based on the 'craft' of the production when referring to renaissance art for instance. The ability of reproduction seems more important than the subject matter. Then again, given the strong contraints under which many religious works were created, the only room for flexibility is in subtle 'b roll' parts of the work and then the ability to capture something in the expressions of the subjects. It is such a strong contraint though.

It is interesting that when we look at contemporary artists, the further from photographic reproduction the artist gets, the bigger the accolades. It's as if there is an 'anti-craft' movement in art appreciation.

Tim

[Charles Twist]

Well I do wonder how much art appreciation is based on the 'craft' of the production when referring to renaissance art for instance. The ability of reproduction seems more important than the subject matter. Then again, given the strong contraints under which many religious works were created, the only room for flexibility is in subtle 'b roll' parts of the work and then the ability to capture something in the expressions of the subjects. It is such a strong contraint though.

That's still true nowadays with a lot of commercial work which gives the photographer very little freedom once the artistic director has made his call. That is very much a reduction to craft - photographer as technician, a camera operator. I do see some opportunities for fancy in secondary roles. Notably, using view cameras and movements, LF film and printing techniques, it's possible to maintain some personal expression - a style you might call it.

It is interesting that when we look at contemporary artists, the further from photographic reproduction the artist gets, the bigger the accolades. It's as if there is an 'anti-craft' movement in art appreciation.

Tim

Is it anti-craft or pro-personal expression? A photograph where the medium represents the subject almost transparently (hard to define, I know, but let's not prevaricate) might be too objective for taste. Nowadays we want to see the brush-strokes and the efforts of the artist. I wonder what appreciation there is for those folk who layed down photo-realistic paintings; and equally for those who used number generators to determine their compositions in painting and music. Anybody any ideas?

Regards,
Charles

[Valerio Trigari]

Hi all,

this is a very interesting topic and, possibly, one of the most difficult to give a precise and absolute definition of.

Personally, I think that fine art photography represent the accomplishment of the technical and artistic vision of the photographer. The artist has reached a level which in his or her personal vision is beyond anything accomplished before, independently of what is current trend or opinion of others. Basically, it's the difference between a good picture and one which leaves me completely without words. It's not simply a question of visual impact, but a combination of many factors, which you may not be able to describe, but nonetheless leave you with the feeling you're staring at something out of the ordinary. I had that overwhelming feeling the first time I saw Ansel Adam's Clearing Winter Storm in an exhibition, it literally blew my mind off. Others may think that the same picture is absolutely pointless and insignificant, but that connects to what I stated at the beginning.

Some have argued that you can't reach those peaks of artistry when working on commission. Although I would tend to agree, I also think that an artist can and should always express his or her skills and visions. It might not be easy, as the commissioner may interfere and sort of dictate what the picture should look like, but the photographer should never bend too much to someone else's will and be reduced to a mere technician. Again, I imagine there are circumstances when you have no choice but obey to the requests of the person who pays the bill, but I would never give up without a fight!

One thing I agree completely is the overuse of the term "fine art" as a mere tool for selling your pictures. Your pictures should speak for themselves, without the need of adding any labels to them. It's the same as this, personally irritating, obsession of certain people to write in huge letters that they are award winning of this or that prize. I do photography because I enjoy it and it enriches my life, not because I feel the need of being told I'm better than others! Anyway, this is a topic for another discussion.

Val