donnahde Loc: Newark, DE

Here's an article from Red River Paper blog. I always enjoy their articles and gain much from many of them. This one addresses an age old question and one I think answers it quite well. I agree with it at any rate. Do you?

http://blog.redriverpaper.com/2015/03/photographs-versus-fine-art-photographs.html?trk_msg=M253HVNNIJB4RB6MTA1UKO3B1C&trk_contact=MNQSIFR23QSRMLIG8OFJ801178&utm_source=Listrak&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=http%3a%2f%2fblog.redriverpaper.com%2f2015%2f03%2fphotographs-versus-fine-art-photographs.html&utm_campaign=Meet+the+Mattes+%7c+Photographs+vs.+Fine+Art+Photographs+

Wow!! Total shock that this url is this long. Hope it works.

Donna

Swamp Gator Loc: Coastal South Carolina

Back when I was in college the fine art dept. there offered a photography class.
At that time anything that was dark, blurry, out of focus and you couldn't even tell what it was supposed to be was considered 'art'.

lesdmd Loc: Middleton Wi via N.Y.C. & Cleveland

Donna, I think that the writer's definition it too limiting:"I think it can be said that if a photograph is well composed (i.e., with interesting internal relationships), well lit (i.e., with appropriate or extraordinary lighting), well executed (i.e., sharp where sharpness is desirable, unsharp where unsharp­ness is acceptable or necessary, and appropriately exposed and printed), and it has the capacity to reach a wider audience, it can be considered a fine art photograph."
Artists takes the rules previously used to define Art and expand, enlarge, and then, based on their knowledge, even break them. One does not have to like what a gallery, or professor, or expert, defines as "Art" but one should remain open minded enough that with some effort to understand where the work came from, and some time exposed to it, the Art will reveal itself.
I know for myself, that much of 20th Century Art was a mystery, some still is, and ugly before I became familiar with it.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Read my signature... Says it all.

HEART Loc: God's Country - COLORADO

NOTE: Long addresses often truncate, so don't worry - it adjusts upon posting.

THE ARTICLE: Spot-on!! One take-away from the author: "... “A lot of it is just pretentious bullshit.” It is pretentious on the part of artists themselves, and the gallery owners, museum curators, and university professors who have a vested interest in saying that their work, the work they show, or the work they judge can be put in one category or another."

The old saying, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," ranks right up there with you "Can't make a silk purse out of sow's ear." Kinda oxymoronic. The audience are those who see your work. They don't have "group thought"; it is all individual.

Enjoy whatever you're photographing/viewing. Pitch what doesn't work for YOU!

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

I think that is called normal eyesight for many people on The Hog!

Good to know that we become connoisseurs of art as we get older! :)

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

I really don't think your definition is far from today's definition.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Interesting. I've always considered "fine art" to be pictures taken for their own sake - beautiful landscapes, for example. Shooting sports or family gatherings would not be fine art, as far as I'm concerned.

It's just terminology, so it doesn't matter to me. Call it whatever you want.

pkricker Loc: Woodstock, NY, USA

That seems like a pretty simplistic answer to a pretty complex question. I agree with what he says but.... I've seen photographs of family gatherings and vacations that were (albeit sometimes accidentally) certainly art in that they effected me in some way despite my lack of direct connection with the subject. I've also seen huge collections of perfectly lit, perfectly exposed, technically brilliant photos in which there was no art whatsoever. Much of the photography I've seen in galleries over the last few years could best be described as "self-indulgent" - "it's art because I say it is". Enigmatic images that mean nothing to anyone who's not trying really hard. Oh well - this could go on for quite a while. Just one more thing - context. I've seen work that meant little or nothing as a single piece, but as part of a series was quite powerful. Is this art if I can't afford more than one of the images? And another thing (see, I told you). HONY (Humans of New York) (if any of you aren't familiar with this body of work look it up on Facebook). In fact, street photography in general. Most of it, taken out of context as single images, is hardly art but when you put it together, as a body of work, it becomes monumental. Vivian Meier I exempt from this. There seems not so much to be a theme in her work, just a series of masterful images. My editor points out that this doesn't seem to have a point, and she's got a point there. Just rambling.

Scoutman Loc: Orlando, FL

Here is Wikipedia's take on the question:

"Fine art photography is photography created in accordance with the vision of the artist as photographer. Fine art photography stands in contrast to representational photography, such as photojournalism, which provides a documentary visual account of specific subjects and events, literally re-presenting objective reality rather than the subjective intent of the photographer; and commercial photography, the primary focus of which is to advertise products or services."

Yet, as a photojournalist I may end up with a picture that some will consider "fine art." Similarly, my ad shot of a woman's foot praising a shade of nail polish, may end up in a collection of "fine art" photography.

donnahde Loc: Newark, DE

YES!! That's interesting, Scoutman. Good points. I agree. I've been pondering this for a while, often thinking that fine art must have extensive post processing - ie combined layers of multiple images yet personally I think that some "visual accounts of reality" are fine art pieces - particularly when the light is especially perfect or shall we say - special. It's all the eye of the beholder anyway and what people SEE as special or "fine" in their mind's eye.

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

I think--That, by the way, is the quintessential announcement of the coming of a subjective discussion.--that "fine art" can be distinguished from "photography" by its lasting effect. Photographs capture moments; fine art catches the essense of a moment. Photographs are interesting to people who know or can hear the narrative behind the image; fine art is interesting because it creates the narrative. The narrative told by a piece of fine art may be as simple as, "I am beauty," or it may be as complex as "This is sadness"; but the narrative endures beyond the voice of the photographer.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

A valid enough point, but photography or at least 'a photograph' is essentially a medium.

Painting is a craft. Photography is a craft. Paint is a medium, a photograph is a medium. Art can be created and expressed in multitudinous forms and is essentially independent of the medium, although it usually requires some mastery of the craft.

Not all artists are good craftsmen (or women) and not all craftsmen are artists.

Fine art can be expressed in many types of media, and photography is most certainly one of those media that can be used to create fine art, as was established by Stieglitz and many others.

donnahde Loc: Newark, DE

Hmmmmm..... I like the idea of "creating a narrative" that earns an image the right to be considered fine art, rdgreenwood. I also notice that we are neighbors!

Blasthoff Loc: Life halved NY and IN

I would have to say "Art" relates to the compositional and/or conceptual aspects of a photograph or the medium. Pictorial photography, as most of us see it, is mostly skilled craft. I think the term "fine art" is either, overused and quite often misused, or it has been redefined to something other then it's original meaning.

The "best" definition I know defining "Art" was from Picaso, who said, as I remember it;

"Art is a lie that makes us realize truth".

The statement/definition is both wide open and yet it is quite definitive. A very profound and accurate statement.