Fine Art Photography: This is a term I see all the time. But what constitutes fine art photography? Is it an image printed on "fine art paper", an attribution by the photographer...

aggiedad Loc: Corona, ca

This is a term I see all the time. But what constitutes fine art photography? Is it an image printed on "fine art paper", an attribution by the photographer themselves ( photos for sale), or the opinion of a viewer? What say you?

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Fine Art is a term used for art made for its own sake, as opposed to commercial art. A lot of people hear the word Fine, and think it must mean high quality art, but that's not the case.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

aggiedad wrote:

This is a term I see all the time. But what constitutes fine art photography? Is it an image printed on "fine art paper", an attribution by the photographer themselves ( photos for sale), or the opinion of a viewer? What say you?

Dad, Fine Art Photograpy is ANY photography not done for hire.
It has nothing to do with fine or art! :lol:
SS

billwassmann Loc: Emerson, NJ

I tend to agree, it's noncommercial photography (other than family snapshots, etc.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

This is weird when you read the topics... They seem to be following a pattern. How many have been about 'art' and 'meaning' of photography?

There there was the printer series then ...

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Rongnongno wrote:

This is weird when you read the topics... They seem to be following a pattern. How many have been about 'art' and 'meaning' of photography?

There there was the printer series then ...

Yes.
More marketing plants maybe.

hlmichel Loc: New Hope, Minnesota

I belong, or belonged to a fine art group. I also searched for the true meaning of fine art, wondering if what I did qualified. It was kind of like Neo searching for the matrix....lol.

The literal meaning of fine art photography is "photography created in accordance with the vision of the artist as photographer."

Here is a perfect example of fine art photography. http://brookeshaden.com/gallery/

And my own humble addition: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-153148-1.html

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

billwassmann wrote:

I tend to agree, it's noncommercial photography (other than family snapshots, etc.

It is commercial photography but items are sold exclusively by a gallery and published. It has nothing to do with subject matter, or paper. The term is often misused.

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

hlmichel wrote:

I belong, or belonged to a fine art group. I also searched for the true meaning of fine art, wondering if what I did qualified. It was kind of like Neo searching for the matrix....lol.
The literal meaning of fine art photography is "photography created in accordance with the vision of the artist as photographer."
Here is a perfect example of fine art photography. http://brookeshaden.com/gallery/
And my own humble addition: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-153148-1.html

It often encompasses figure studies, abstractions, unusual techniques or perspectives on a subject.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Mark7829 wrote:

It is commercial photography but items are sold exclusively by a gallery and published. It has nothing to do with subject matter, or paper. The term is often misused.

Just like the term "commercial" is often misused as it applies to art. Yes, the general definition of "commercial" is "related to or used in the buying and selling of goods and services," but the specific definition when applied to art is something made for a utilitarian use, usually to advertise or publicize products or services for sale. The term "fine art" is used to differentiate it FROM commercial art. You could say that selling fine art is a commercial enterprise, but fine art by definition is not commercial.

msmith44

So Norman Rockwell's paintings for the Saturday Evening Post aren't "fine art?" Avedon's portraits of celebrities are "commercial art?"

This question like "Is photography art?"is pretty meaningless. Images become art, they are not automatically "fine art."

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

msmith44 wrote:

So Norman Rockwell's paintings for the Saturday Evening Post aren't "fine art?" Avedon's portraits of celebrities are "commercial art?"

This question like "Is photography art?"is pretty meaningless. Images become art, they are not automatically "fine art."

The art world reserves the right to declare something "fine art" that wasn't intended to be, after the fact, like Norman Rockwell was promoted from "illustrator" to "artist." I think Avedon has been seen as an artist even when he was shooting fashion or celebrity portraits. Both are special cases, but the fact remains that "commercial art" and "fine art" have specific definitions that apply to most art.

msmith44

JohnSwanda wrote:

The art world reserves the right to declare something "fine art" that wasn't intended to be, after the fact, like Norman Rockwell was promoted from "illustrator" to "artist." I think Avedon has been seen as an artist even when he was shooting fashion or celebrity portraits. Both are special cases, but the fact remains that "commercial art" and "fine art" have specific definitions that apply to most art.

"Art" is recognized not assigned. You seem to assume the designation of an object as "art" is determined by intent. However, art transcends category and it is this transcendence that is recognized. Take utilitarian objects, e.g., bowls or woven shawls, which can be both used for a practical purpose and be art at the same time.

This is probably a discussion best continued with a bottle of artfully brewed sake sipped from rare ceramic sake cups. :thumbup:

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

msmith44 wrote:

"Art" is recognized not assigned. You seem to assume the designation of an object as "art" is determined by intent. However, art transcends category and it is this transcendence that is recognized. Take utilitarian objects, e.g., bowls or woven shawls, which can be both used for a practical purpose and be art at the same time.

This is probably a discussion best continued with a bottle of artfully brewed sake sipped from rare ceramic sake cups. :thumbup:

I do firmly believe that art is originally determined by intent, a view widely held in the art world. It could be good art or bad art, which may have to be determined by posterity. However, works which were not intended by their creators to be art can be determined to be so after the fact because of their creative qualities. This idea of the intent to make art is fairly recent in the history of man, so before that objects are determined to be art just by their creative qualities.

dnathan

Huh?