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


Fine Art


iancrowson e2
4 211 129 United Kingdom
18 Dec 2012 10:29AM
Reviews suggesting a restaurant and it's wines list are pretentious are are a good way of getting snobs in the doors. Stating that a picture is FINE Art is useful for upping the price. Being snobbish may be seen as a human failing, a weakness in a person's character, but it don't half help sell stuff.
Ian

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

779HOB 2 1.0k United Kingdom
18 Dec 2012 11:58AM

Quote:I have called a friend a 'snob' before as a simple statement of fact and they have agreed with me. So while it may not be positive, it has not been insulting.


I am sure you are right. It's not insulting to call someone a snob becasue they call their work fine art. In my humble opinion this site could use a few more snobs.
18 Dec 2012 12:13PM
Really starting to think this thread is getting out of hand. What started off as a simple question about what fine art is (regardless of how complex the answer is) has resulted in name calling, ridicule and arrogance.

As I said previously, I really thought better of my fellow ephotozine members, but perhaps it really is time to move on to other subjects or less close-minded forums
Focus_Man 4 481 631 United Kingdom
18 Dec 2012 12:32PM
SNOB is a category ie NOB is 'nobilitate' (Latin, meaning of the nobility) SNOB is 'sine nobilitate' (Latin meaning without nobility). at least that was always my understanding, apparently starting out as a way of categorising ships passengers.
Focus_Man 4 481 631 United Kingdom
18 Dec 2012 12:39PM

Quote:As has been mentioned in the Wikipedia defintion;.


Wiki is the least reliable source when looking for answers. What you read may well be correct but as it is editable by anybody who cares to do so it, it cannot be relied upon. It is great for a quick answer when you are looking to perhaps ensure your own opinion is correct, but if it is important double check against some other on-line reference which is NOT editable by all and sundry.
Rawmazz Junior Member 1 41 United Kingdom
18 Dec 2012 12:41PM
These are some examples of what I would call fine art. Anything not in this league is simply a good photo. If you enjoy art you will see the difference.

Just my opinion, but that is the difficulty when you approach the subject of "ART".


http://www.thespiderawards.com/gallery/7th/gallery.php?x=p&cid=109&g=w


These are images from someone claiming them to be fine art. They are not even close in either technique or subject matter.

http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/chantal-photopix.html

Anyone can claim to be a fine art photographer very few can actually produce the goods.
mikehit e2
5 6.8k 11 United Kingdom
18 Dec 2012 1:34PM
I can see the difference - but can you define it?
Paul has come from an angle of using the term in its artistic sense, and personally I would have no problem with the pictures in the first link being referred to as 'fine art'.
But what the man in the street often sees is pictures in your second link being clased as 'fine art' and (in my view correctly) sees someone trying to attach a label for nothing other than marketing.

One part of your comment niggles: "If you enjoy art you will see the difference." This suggests a cogniscenti, an educated few who 'get it' and this gives another nudge to the idea of the general population that it is all about people trying to be different for no apparent reason.
Don't get me wrong: I can see where you are coming from but sometimes artists do not help themselves with the way they use terms and then go right ahead and abuse them.
18 Dec 2012 2:03PM
And of course, its always the artists that abuse it. the humble art buyer or gallery would NEVER claim to have fine art in their collection.

Just a point to remember, photography, for the most part is an art. So while you will happy tag artists as being misleading, snobbish and pretentious, remember you are including yourself and your peers in that.
Rawmazz Junior Member 1 41 United Kingdom
18 Dec 2012 2:05PM
No, I don't think you can define art, but I do think you can clearly see what is not fine art. I used the phrase "if you enjoy art you will see the difference " because some don't and can't, to those few, if it's labelled as such, then they believe it to be. Art appreciation has nothing to with education.

But as I said, as is the case with all art opinions, that's just mine.
18 Dec 2012 2:13PM
ok, so the OED definition of fine art reads:

[mass noun] (also fine arts) creative art, especially visual art whose products are to be appreciated primarily or solely for their imaginative, aesthetic, or intellectual content

Also defined in another dictionary as:

1.
a. Art produced or intended primarily for beauty rather than utility.
b. Any of the art forms, such as sculpture, painting, or music, used to create such art. Often used in the plural.
2. Something requiring highly developed techniques and skills

The term, as i understand it originated in the mid-late 18th century and has been used to describe works that fit the above definitions, and therefore categorised differently from commercial art or applied art.

Can we move on now?
Rawmazz Junior Member 1 41 United Kingdom
18 Dec 2012 2:28PM
? indicates you want an answer, so yes....We can move on.
mikehit e2
5 6.8k 11 United Kingdom
18 Dec 2012 2:41PM

Quote:Ok, so the OED definition of fine art reads:

[mass noun] (also fine arts) creative art, especially visual art whose products are to be appreciated primarily or solely for their imaginative, aesthetic, or intellectual content

Also defined in another dictionary as:

1.
a. Art produced or intended primarily for beauty rather than utility.
b. Any of the art forms, such as sculpture, painting, or music, used to create such art. Often used in the plural.
2. Something requiring highly developed techniques and skills

The term, as i understand it originated in the mid-late 18th century and has been used to describe works that fit the above definitions, and therefore categorised differently from commercial art or applied art.

Can we move on now?



Under 2 of those three definitions, Ansel Adams would be fine art (aesthetic). Some photojournalism works could be fine art (intellectual content, and note I said 'could') - and the increasing appearance of these styles in 'fine art' galleries would, to the non-artist, support that.
Abuse and misuse of the term goes all the way through the chain: some photographers who abuse the term for commercial reasons, some galleries who abuse it to show a wider selection of works and larger commercial throughput, and punters who abuse/misuse it either through misunderstanding or feelings of status (how much nicer it is to be a collector of 'fine art' rather than 'pictures').
I sometimes get the feeling that before 'fine art' is applied to photography has to meet other (unstated) criteria that is not applicable to other art forms.


This comes from a professional photographer posted on another website, and for his photographs he clearly considers the whole process from taking the picture to final presentation as contributing to the 'fine art' moniker. I am sure many will disagree but that is the problem when trying to pin down concepts.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=25508.0


Quote:I agree that the term fine art is overused, but then limited editions are also over used. Currently I only offer my portfolios in limited editions. On request, and for certain images, I will date the print. That seems more genuine to me than placing a number out of a huge edition, such as 25/2000, which is eventually meaningless since there are so many prints, even though each of them has a unique number. Ansel Adams did not number his prints either, unless I am mistaken.

For me a fine art photograph is one that is done with the goal of creating a work of art. It is an image that is done with a high level of craftmanship and care. It has to be mounted and matted to museum standards, in an archival manner.

Above all the cost should take a second seat to the concern for quality. Fine art is about quality, not about quantity. It is not about trying to save money by buying lower-priced inks, paper, matboard and other supplies. It is about creating the finest piece you can create, regardless of cost.

The goal is an artistic rendering of a subject in the finest manner possible.

Regardless of price and cost, a fine art print should sing. It should have a lyrical quality. It should transport you to a different place. It should open a window on another world, the world the artist is inviting the audience into.

it should demonstrate an above-average printing skills. Ideally, it should demonstrate outstanding printing skills.

A full definition of fine art photography is challenging. it's a little like defining what is a luxury home, or a luxury car. Some brands and features come to mind, but how do you rate a new brand, a new product?

In photography we all know that specific photographer's work can be safely considered fine art: Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Joel Meyerowitz, all produced fine art work. But how about a new photographer whose work hasn't been "stamped" with the fine art label by his or her peers? More difficult to say. I hope the above list, however partial, does help

18 Dec 2012 2:49PM
Ok, I think the major problem is not working out what fine art is, but he difference between opinion and definition. I have posted what, as I have understood, to be the accepted definition and description of fine art by the artistic community, museums, galleries in the uk and internationally. I really can't offer any more than that. Perhaps if the original question had been 'what's your opinion on fine art' or 'what do you think should be called fine art' it may have caused less confusion

And yes, the term fine art is abused, but that does not mean there is no such thing and only goes to prove its definition (as in, you cannot misuse a term that cannot be defined)
brian1208 e2
11 10.4k 12 United Kingdom
18 Dec 2012 2:54PM

Quote:it should demonstrate an above-average printing skills. Ideally, it should demonstrate outstanding printing skills.



I'd agree strongly with this in the context of photographic and non-photographic print making
20 Dec 2012 3:35AM

Quote:
This comes from a professional photographer posted on another website, and for his photographs he clearly considers the whole process from taking the picture to final presentation as contributing to the 'fine art' moniker. I am sure many will disagree but that is the problem when trying to pin down concepts.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=25508.0

I agree that the term fine art is overused, but then limited editions are also over used. Currently I only offer my portfolios in limited editions. On request, and for certain images, I will date the print. That seems more genuine to me than placing a number out of a huge edition, such as 25/2000, which is eventually meaningless since there are so many prints, even though each of them has a unique number. Ansel Adams did not number his prints either, unless I am mistaken.

For me a fine art photograph ...



And there it falls apart

'For me...' is opinion.

For my cousin she see's orange if its olive. She is colour blind. Its her perception, and to her its real, but in reality, its olive. Olive is the fact, opinion is that its orange

[b]"it should demonstrate an above-average printing skills. Ideally, it should demonstrate outstanding printing skills."[/b]

So a projected image or reprint in a book or magazine means the original is no longer fine art? Is art only in presentation? Is a printer (mechanically or otherwise) the artist or the fine artist or the tool?

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.