Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Fine Art


paulbroad e2
7 89 880 United Kingdom
14 Dec 2012 7:34PM
Can someone define 'fine art' for me. I'm having trouble deciding what is the difference between that and a really nice photograph?

I have been looking at some images from a fine art photographer and the reasoning behind the title beats me.

Paul

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

widtink e2
2 406 2 Scotland
14 Dec 2012 7:44PM
they charge more cash lol
cats_123 e2
10 4.3k 25 Northern Ireland
14 Dec 2012 7:48PM
it's what someone will pay for it... "it's a totally authentic piece of ****" as `I saw you coming' would say!! WinkGrin
Dave_Collier e2
8 236 2 England
14 Dec 2012 7:59PM
Basically it is all about being creative and separating it from journalism and commercial photography. Take a look at the Wikipedia definition , if you can stay awake long enough.
Generally fine art is considered art that is created to create emotion rather than reproduce a scene. Its also commonly referred to as conceptual art and includes many forms such as photography, sculpture, installation, etc.

That said, i studied fine art during one of my degrees at art school and i have to say the term is used for a lot of things that werent quite what we used as reference lol.

It is, to some, a class thing too. Some are happy to justify the cost of art if they claim it as fine art, while some others will term it as being pretentious
Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
14 Dec 2012 8:23PM
brian1208 e2
11 10.6k 12 United Kingdom
14 Dec 2012 9:52PM
the best definition I've seen was by the owner of a large fine art gallery who described it as:

"Something I would like to hang on my wall"

(I must see if I can track down who it was as it was a few years back now)
Sooty_1 e2
4 1.3k 203 United Kingdom
15 Dec 2012 12:03AM
There usually is little difference between fine art and nice photo ........ Just look at the number of people claiming their work as fine art on here and the web in general! There also a few who are more modest, yet produce work that is just as good, if not better.

Just because its black and white doesn't make it fine art, nor does extensive photoshopping. IMHO, fine art is quite hard to define, but perhaps if you define your own work as such, then it isn't.

Art is for the taker/maker to like or enjoy, and for others to judge.

Nick

Quote:There usually is little difference between fine art and nice photo ........ Just look at the number of people claiming their work as fine art on here and the web in general! There also a few who are more modest, yet produce work that is just as good, if not better.


Nick



But not all photography is art, in its truest sense. Is the front cover or page 3 of tomorrows rag art, or is Adams or Bresson or somewhere in between?Not saying there isnt talent in a lot of photography, but there is technical talent and artistic talent and thats where fine art comes in. Its taking a camera to a subject and creating something rather than recreating


Quote:
Art is for the taker/maker to like or enjoy, and for others to judge.



Very true. But is a shot of a blackbird on a tree compared with a soldier in a war zone or a mountain vista or portrait? No. Fine art is a category, not a judgement
paulbroad e2
7 89 880 United Kingdom
15 Dec 2012 7:57AM
Interesting. For me, anything can be art - I would certainly rather look at page 3 than some of the 'fine art' I'e just been looking at. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Fine art is something else. Two words.

Paul
redsnappa 12 2.0k United Kingdom
15 Dec 2012 9:38AM
There was a story recently about a artist who bought used rolls of film from eBay, developed and printed prof those films than had the audacity to exhibit other peoples photos as his artwork.

There is no difference between photography and fine art, the only difference is if a photographer exhibits photos it is not art and if an artist exhibits photos it is art.
15 Dec 2012 10:38AM

Quote:There was a story recently about a artist who bought used rolls of film from eBay, developed and printed prof those films than had the audacity to exhibit other peoples photos as his artwork.

There is no difference between photography and fine art, the only difference is if a photographer exhibits photos it is not art and if an artist exhibits photos it is art.



Is there a difference between a painting and a sculpture? A photograph and a ballet? Of course there is. They are all still forms or at though.

In the same way, there is a difference between landscape photography and portraits, or still life and wildlife. Fine art is just another 'category' of photography/art
Sooty_1 e2
4 1.3k 203 United Kingdom
15 Dec 2012 11:19AM
I disagree to a point. What not just "art photography" or "photographic art"? Using the term "fine art" implies something above the norm, something better than most mortals can achieve.

Historically, fine art has been applied to works which the critics considered above the run of the mill...there are thousands of talented artists producing good work, but what makes people like Hockney, Emin, Rothko et al. famous? Who says they are any better? Only the critics, not the artist.

Photography can be another medium to express yourself, another art form. But calling your work "fine art" implies that it is better....not in a category, but on another plane, and that, I feel, is not for the originator to decide.

If it is a category, where does it sit? Are you saying only landscapes can be fine art, but not portraits? Only black and white? Why can't a blackbird in a tree or soldier in a war zone be fine art?

I saw an exhibition a couple of years ago where one of the "artists" travelled to the home of a Turner Prize winner and stole a small tree. The "artwork" was the tree and the e-mails that passed between the two parties. To me, that's theft, not art. In the above example, that isn't so much theft (as the films were bought) of property but of intellectual property, and misrepresentation.

Art can take many forms, including photography, but whether its "fine art" or not really depends on what others think and/or how much they are willing to pay for it.
paulbroad e2
7 89 880 United Kingdom
15 Dec 2012 12:13PM
Sooty is right. Fine Art Photography is not another category, or we would all be doing it. The subjects in fine art are the same as any other subject. No, to me it is a bit of a snooty thing. My pictures are better than your pictures stuff.

But then, I think most Lowery images are terrible!

Paul
15 Dec 2012 12:14PM
So another photographic and artistic definition and category bites the dust. Shall we remove landscapes next? Or perhaps portraiture?

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.