R.G. Loc: Scotland

Rather than getting into esoteric discussions trying to define what fine art is, it might be simpler and more productive to discuss the difference between art and fine art.

Even if it's a subject that you haven't given much thought to, we all have opinions that we can share and we can all make our own assessments. Since art is subjective, you can consider your own opinions and assessments to be as valid as anyone else's, so the discussion doesn't have to be for just the "experts".

I recently posted image #1 and shortly after I posted image #3, which is of the same subject (the solitary tree) but with a different composition and mood. When I posted #3 it was suggested that between them the images capture the difference between art and fine art, with #1 being the example of fine art.

Feel free to agree/disagree with the above, preferably commenting on or providing useful insights into any of the points made.

If you have an example of what you consider to be fine art - or ideally one example of art and one example of fine art - please post it/them and describe why you assess it/them the way you do.


To start the discussion I offer image #2 to consider alongside image #1. Image #2 is similar to #1 but has no foreground to anchor the scene, or as some people like to put it, #2 doesn't give the viewer anywhere to stand. My own assessment is that #2 is less grounded and therefore lends itself to a more surreal atmosphere. In addition, #2 is more minimalist than #1 (despite the wider view of the background in #2).

Does the more minimalist composition of #2 make it a better example of fine art than #1?

Does agreeing with that assessment suggest that minimalism is a fine art characteristic?

Does the same thing apply to surrealism?

What other characteristics enhance/diminish an image's status as an example of "fine art" (as opposed to just "art")?

-

#1.

(Download)

#2.

(Download)

#3.

(Download)

MichaelH Loc: NorCal via Lansing, MI

wikipedia, my go to for quick info, has this definition for Fine Art: "In European academic traditions, fine art is art developed primarily for aesthetics or beauty, distinguishing it from applied art that also has to serve some practical function, such as pottery or most metalwork." Using this definition a news photograph because it has a main purpose other than being beautiful would not be "Fine Art". Using this literal definition does not seem to get us anywhere closer to differentiating between Art and Fine Art though. Wiki seems to make the distinction between "Fine Art" and "Applied Art" with "Art" including both.

In your example, I would say that all are "Fine Art" with the rainbow example being the most qualified because - well it has a rainbow and that is always fine!!!

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thanks for commenting, MH. Already we're into the murky depths of definitions . I think we should remind ourselves that they are just definitions. I don't think that "applied art" and "fine art" were ever intended to encompass all of the possibilities where art is concerned. I would have said that aesthetics is what differentiates art from any of the utilitarian crafts. I suspect that the difference between art and fine art is all about the different aesthetics involved rather than the presence/absence of aesthetics. An interesting point to raise.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

My emotional responses to #1 and #2 were very different - quite a revelation! Removing the foreground made me immediately feel the fragility - the tenuous existence of the tree - and its being smaller in the frame reinforced those feelings, as well.

I guess comparing to #1, it is more minimalist, but overall I wouldn't classify the photo that way. I also don't feel minimalism is necessarily a fine art characteristic. Here's why:

(definition cobbled together from several sources and how I interpret) A fine art image is one in which the photographer attempts to produce an evocative or atmospheric impression. The viewer is left to interpret the image based on their own experiences and memories. That means the photo will succeed or fail based on whether the viewer connects with the message.

Certainly a minimalistic image could be more likely to resonate with a viewer because of fewer visual cues as to time and place - which leaves more to interpretation and imagination and the chance of identifying with a feeling. But doing a search in Google Images results in many photos considered to be minimalism that are primarily about geometry, graphics, design and color.

---

#1 below is art. It is art rather than a documentary photo because I carefully composed for the lines and patterns, including the dissonance of the left-leaning foreground pole - and because I chose muted colors that, after several experiments, seemed to best support the contrasts of the various elements. I hoped to generate interest in the expansive size of the field, and the complexity and symmetry of the lines, with support from the other elements, including if you stayed with it long enough, discovery of a distant volcano. But it is unlikely there will be any personal viewer connection or emotion unless they have labored in similar fields

The rest are my humble attempts at fine art. None is a documentary photo of birds; each was composed and processed with the intent of eliciting an emotional response.

Thanks so much for this stimulating topic, R.G.!

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Cwilson341 Loc: Central Florida

My thoughts on this subject are.......well I'm pretty confused by all I see and read on the subject so I can only share my personal feelings.

To me, photographic art is any photo that is skillfully crafted by the photographer to have qualities that are exceptionally pleasing to me but still clearly photography. Exposure, composition, lighting, emotion, and content that makes me stop and inhale the essence of the scene. R.G, your second shot does that for me. Art is exceptional. Art is different for each person. I don't feel it has to be totally natural. Some infrared photography is art to me. It isn't natural but I know what it is and it is skillfully crafted and identifiable.

Based mainly on things I have seen and read, I think of "fine art" as being more manipulated and not necessarily really looking like photographs. Fine art photography might resemble graphic art in some cases. I think of fine art as not necessarily displaying the highest level of photographic technical skill but being enhanced through processing to display qualities the are pleasing and captivating.

I don't worry much about the "art" tag. I pretty much know what pleases me when I see it. I enjoy both photographic art, fine art and lots of shots that may not be art but are still interesting and well done! I would never expect my opion of the classification of a photo to influence how anyone else feels about it.

Cwilson341 Loc: Central Florida

Linda, my intention was to post my thoughts and then think how they applied to your photos. By what I wrote, I would put all four in the art category with three and four being somewhat cross over. To me, one category is not more prestigious than the other and I am slightly more inclined to respect photographic art. I find each of these shots to be very appealing. The first captivates by its composition. The color is manipulated but in a manner that enhances the experience. The swans are photographic excellence that touches the heart. Number three is more manipulated but in a manner that still preserve the photographic nature of the shot and takes it from an ordinary shot to a moody experience. Number 4 has a definite artistic feel to me.

I don't know if this makes sense but it is intended to be very complementary because I sincerely enjoy all four!

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Great, thoughtful thread for discussion RG. I don't claim to be any expert, but I don't see that minimalism has anything to do with it. The tree images are minimalistic, one more than the other, and they are art. They could be considered fine art, depending on how they are presented, IMHO. Since photography itself is a visual art, much of the work we create on purpose is, in my view, art - the real question is whether it is good art or not. I tend to use the term "fine art" to distinguish between work that I do that is documentary and work that I do that I consider artwork - the stuff that is carefully composed, thoughtfully edited and displayed with intent to create some kind of reaction in the viewer.

I found myself using the term "fine art" a lot in discussing my dam bird portfolio with prospective galleries. My purpose in that was to tell them (multiple times) that these were not wildlife photos, they were artistic conceptions. I did not want to be accused of manipulating a wildlife image because documenting wildlife accurately was not my goal. My goal was to convey the beauty and majesty of these birds set against an environment that while harsh and even ugly, can be seen as magical if looked at through different eyes. I made it plain that I had taken artistic liberties with some, and explained those liberties proudly to those viewers who asked specific questions when I was on-site at the exhibit. The designation was not just about post processing though: some of the dam bird images have almost no editing while others have 30 layers of photoshop fiddling. The designation was more about intent - what I was trying to have viewers see and feel.

I'll post one of the two images the museum selected for posters. The first is the SOOC capture, which was decent enough that I felt it had artistic qualities. the second is the edited version, which I considered fine art type photography. It took the intent I had when I captured the initial photo and invested time and effort to shape it into what I wanted it to be. Some of that work was corrective (there was some CA, a little haloing, and color work that needed tending to) but then I did dodge and burn stuff, added a texture layer, shaped the lighting, fiddled with the water, cropped, sharpened selectively, etc to get the look I wanted. Then it was printed on art paper, and looked great at 24x36.

(Download)


(Download)

JD750 Loc: SoCal

First I want to say nice work on all. My R-brain really likes #1, and #3 second.

Art vs fine art? That is a moving target. Wha is fine art?

'The word "fine" does not so much denote the quality of the artwork in question, but the purity of the discipline according to traditional Western European canons.' source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art

I think that fine art in photography today most definitely has a minimalist characteristic.

Surrealism is a different form of art. Does minimalist apply to Surrealism? I don't think so. (Art majors please feel free to weigh in).

But all these left brain discussions about art? Ye god man, just look at it and feel it. "Use the force Luke". Experience it. What feeling do you get from fine art? That is the important part.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thanks for responding in your usual thoughtful way, and thanks for posting examples of what you're talking about.

Perhaps I should have explained at the outset why I mentioned minimalism and surrealism. To me ( personal definition alert ) "art" is a universal language, whereas "fine art" suggests something that would appeal more to refined tastes, which to my mind would involve an emphasis on depicting essences, perhaps more so than depicting recognisable realities.

Depicting essences is what minimalism and surrealism are both all about, and on the strength of that I would expect fine art to lean towards being minimalist and surreal. As with all things there are degrees of manifestation and I'm not suggesting that minimalism and surrealism need to be pronounced before a work of art can be classified as fine art. Neither am I suggesting that minimalism and surrealism are the only defining characteristics of fine art, but I would expect both to be a recurring theme in the world of fine art.

Where your proposed definition is concerned - "a fine art image is one in which the photographer attempts to produce an evocative or atmospheric impression" - I would say that with art the whole intention is to be evocative, so to my mind that definition applies to far more than just fine art. But I would agree that fine art is about being evocative in an impressionistic way.

Perhaps it's all about how subtle the evocativeness is. The more subtle (refined?) it is, the more likely it is to appeal to those of refined tastes, and the more likely it is to be referred to as fine art.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thanks for commenting, CW. Your observation ties in with my suggestion that impressionism is a main player in the world of fine art. The reason why impressionists get away with their blatant departures from reality is that those departures are caused by the artist's attempts to extract the essence of what's being portrayed, which typically results in the impression being overlayed on top of the actual reality.

I also like your comment "I don't worry much about the "art" tag. I pretty much know what pleases me when I see it". With discussions like this it's too easy to end up discussing the definitions rather than the subject/s that inspired the discussion.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thanks for contributing, minniev. If I'm interpreting your comments properly they seem to be pointing to the implications of how we use the term "fine art". Reading between the lines, if you think it's good (in an artistic way) you refer to it as fine art. Where your definition of fine art is concerned ("the stuff that is carefully composed, thoughtfully edited and displayed with intent to create some kind of reaction in the viewer"), I would say that that definition could be applied more broadly to art in general. I also suspect that your idea of "good" art parallels my definition of fine art in that impressionism and subtlety are main players.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I agree with your suggestion that definitions have limited value, JD. It's about the experience, which embraces much more than just the thought processes. And there's always the danger that the discussion becomes about the definitions rather than the subject itself.

I'm a long way from being an art major, but I would like to respond to your comment "Does minimalist apply to Surrealism?" If surrealism doesn't have a specific purpose, it's just about portraying reality differently. However, if the intention is to say something about what's being portrayed, to my mind the best way to do that is to capture something of the essence of what's being portrayed - and that is exactly what impressionism is all about. So to my mind the best form of surrealism leans towards impressionism. That's just my opinion, but I do like it when things have a purpose to justify them, especially when that purpose is in keeping with the purpose of art in general.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

R.G., I kind of got lost with some of what your follow-up said (my aging brain struggles mightily some days), but one comment you made is interesting food for thought: "with art the whole intention is to be evocative." Does that suggest a wide gap between amateurs and professionals? And is the intent to be evocative something innate, or learned and refined as we go along? However that works, I think we still need to keep in mind that one person's masterpiece might be another's piece of junk. Which is why I enjoyed the suggestion that a piece succeeds or fails "based on whether the viewer connects with the message." I do get your point about refined tastes - though "refined" in American English can have a bit of negative connotation. Like "exclusive," there can be an implied feeling of superiority and a separation between cultured/sophisticated and all the rest of us

Thank you Carol! Your use of prestigious resonates because I think many folks feel "fine art" is kind of a pretentious term. Or out of reach, either in understanding, or as too lofty a goal in their own work. I wouldn't label my own photos as fine art, except in this discussion.

At times I would like to be able to learn more effective ways to reach people on an emotional level, but I doubt I'll ever narrow my focus entirely since there are too many scenes to enjoy, and styles of pp to experiment with - too much fun, in other words

Minnie. I really appreciate that you detailed your manipulations of the photo, since some are not obvious to the casual eye, e.g. mine!

Your mention of "how they are presented" reminded me I saw an article referencing fine art as encompassing a body of work, not just a single image. I don't recall if the author was referring specifically to gallery presentations, but that would make sense.

And if so, that implies there must be a base point of technical competence (worthy of offering for sale or professional critique?), not just creative vision. I wonder if there is "fine art light?" I could aspire to someday being in that category

There you go - so simple!

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I suppose it's inevitable that a subject like this is going to end up a bit unwieldy. I see the differences between sophisticated/unsophisticated and refined/unrefined/crude as facts of life. To a great extent it's like hair colour - it's what you're born with. Some people won't "get it" unless "it" is in their face, and they like it that way, whereas some people prefer subtlety. I was speculating that fine art is what people with a preference for subtlety would choose, whereas art is more universal.

I'm inclined to assume that part of the motive behind creating a work of art is to evoke something in the beholder. I'm inclined to think that that is a universal motive and applies to professionals and amateurs.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Excellent, thank you! As soon as I read "crude," I made a connection between comedy and art. Some of our most popular tv comedies are soooo unrefined (in your face) I also like the idea that perhaps we amateur photographers turn a corner with our own work when we start being more aware of, and interested in, emotional responses from viewers.

I can make sense now of fine art images being more strongly about "essence" as you put it, and also may refer to a body of work rather than a single image - and one that is gallery quality technically, as well.