What is Fine Art Photography?

[Peter O'Connor]

Could someone clarify what constitutes 'fine art' as a genre of photography please...

Simple question really... maybe!

 

[Pete Askew]

Ah, a nice simple question then!!

There are some nice, thought provoking essays here you might like.

The Making of a Fine Art Photograph

 

[Peter O'Connor]

I've opened Pandoras Box here haven't I!

I'm not sure if I am being cynically ctitical or if I'm simply playing Devils' Advocate for the sake of the argument...

But...

From that article I am only left with the impression that it's fine art because it took a long time to process (the statement that he can 'understand seeing properly' because he worked for N.A.S.A. doesn't help his case.... In my 'humble' opinion.

I'm not being cynical.

I just don't gettit...

So, He spent a long time making sure it was technically provident. Tonal values are maximised but kept in check.

Composition - well thats just objective or subjective depending on what shoes you wear so I'm not going to dwell on that ...

Or is that the whole point of my initial question??

No, it's not. I'm not asking 'WHAT IS ART'?

I'm asking what constitutes a 'Fine Art' photograph.....

Curiouse and curiouser... Hhhmmmm.

 

[Brian Moore]

I'm not asking 'WHAT IS ART'?

Why not Peter? It may get you closer quicker to the answer you seek.

 

[Peter O'Connor]

Hey Brian..
Because that question will never be answered! More importantly, I haven't enough Chateauneuf Du Pape or marjuana to begin that debate!

What constitutes a 'fine art' photograph is more specific...

A snapshot by a 3 yr old could be art... if that's what the project was entitled or endeavouring to portray.
It wouldn't necessarily be included in a fine art portfolio... etc etc..

Here is a link to 500px fine art category.... 500px / Popular Photos

What makes them 'fine'?

Why is there a specific category? are the other images on the site not fine? or art?

 

[Paul Lange]

Ummmmmmm, bit of a tricky one that Peter. Fine art is something that nowadays constantly seeks to re-define itself. The grey areas where it bleeds into other genres are also large and ill-defined. I can only really explain what fine art means to me in regards to my own photographs. This probably will not stand up as a good definition for others and their work. You will see that my explanation is on the contrary to that in the link.

I really take two kinds of photographs:

Those that are of things I like and would like a photograph of just because they will (hopefully) look good. They can be of all sorts of things and might tell a bit of a story with the subjects in them. Old buildings, shabby streets, interesting things found while walking about, scenery, animals, etc. In a sense these are all documentary in varying degrees.

Those that are based on an idea and are taken with the intent of communicating something. This could be a social comment, an observation, about how we relate to images, etc. These photographs could be of anything really, in a sense it all distills down to the intent when the photograph is taken.

However, as said before there is a large grey area potentially even between these two definitions. Though historically fine art was considered to be an artwork produced as a result of disciplined work and was judged primarily on its aesthetic qualities. These days often fine art is judged primarily on other factors, often with aesthetics at the bottom of the list.

I imagine that makes it clear as mud and crystal as the same time!

 

[Peter O'Connor]

Who has seen this before...

To Me at least, this is what I consider 'fine' (not just because of exposed breast!) as opposed to the general (albeit well produced) images in the 500px fine art collection.

THE TRIAL by AurumLight Studio « Aurum Light Blog

 

[Brian Moore]

I haven't enough Chateauneuf Du Pape or marjuana to begin that debate!

LOL. Presumably you've enough for the fine art photo debate.

I'd too would be interested to know why the 500px people defined those photos as fine art.

I can't help but think that this is going to come down to a "What is art?" question with the words fine and photograph as a jumping off point.

 

[Hamish Gill]

I wish I had something intelligent to say ...
I'm not sure I do...

I think fine art should be about striving to achive a perfect image ...
But I don't know how the end viewer is supposed to determin whether or not the artist did spend time striving for perfection ...
I suppose just through the image fitting to some predefined specs ...
I don't know what they are ...
Or if there are any ...
Or if twy would be worth following ...
Or even of there are any someone could really tell if they had been stuck to...

I don't know is my answer ... ... ...
I don't think I am really bothered either ...

Is that bad ...

Photography is an art, as such it is open to interpretation ...
It's surely the interpretation that might classify something as "fine"
But who has the right to decide?
The viewer or the artist ...
I'm not sure I would trust an artist who claimed to produce fine art
I certainly wouldnt trust a critic ...

Ok I've talked my self into an answer now...
Fine art is what I decide is fine art ...
Or you decide ...
Or anyone ...
Just as long as they don't decide to force that opinion on anyone else ... Especially me ... Coz I probably wouldn't believe them as a matter of course ....
Unless I knew them personally and knew I had similar taste to them ...

I think ...

 

[Hamish Gill]

What a load of bollocks ... Told you I didn't have anything intelligent to add!

 

[Peter O'Connor]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Thanks Mr. Gill

Duly noted.

 

[Hamish Gill]

I don't see how "what is fine art photography" can be any different a question to "what is art" ... To me it's equally undefinable ...
But I'd be interested to learn otherwise ... I think ...
I'm not sure anyone could convince me pf antthing though ... ...

 

[Hamish Gill]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Thanks Mr. Gill

Duly noted.

no probs!