Fine Art

[ThomThomsk]

Does this mean that if you're a student making art for your degree it's not really art?

That is a very interesting thought. I think the definition still works though, because presumably the student has produced something that expresses their creativity and which is to be appreciated primarily for its beauty. The fact that perhaps it wouldn't have been produced at all if it weren't for a particular coursework assignment doesn't necessarily turn it into something else.

Trying to work through the logic of that, if the same student has another assignment to produce a product photograph that could be used in advertising, does it fail to be a product photograph because it is never actually used to sell anything? In that case wouldn't you say photography students can only ever produce one category of image, assignment submissions?

Does that make sense? I did say the line is blurred, and the definition could probably do with some finessing.

 

[JHF Photography]

That is a very interesting thought. I think the definition still works though, because presumably the student has produced something that expresses their creativity and which is to be appreciated primarily for its beauty. The fact that perhaps it wouldn't have been produced at all if it weren't for a particular coursework assignment doesn't necessarily turn it into something else.

So then sticking with this idea, why could a fashion or product photographer's work not be classified as art? I would presume that they set out to create a beautiful image that expresses their creativity as well. Does the end result of display as advertising make the image any less a creative work of art?

Jason

 

[ThomThomsk]

So then sticking with this idea, why could a fashion or product photographer's work not be classified as art? I would presume that they set out to create a beautiful image that expresses their creativity as well. Does the end result of display as advertising make the image any less a creative work of art?

Jason

Another good question. I think it has to do with the primary purpose of the image. I haven't yet found a definition of fine art as anything other than being primarily concerned with the creation of beautiful objects. The following example occurred to me this morning on the train:

Imagine a large black and white photo of a glass bottle against a rough plastered wall. Naturally lit, the image has a full range of tones and the way the light falls emphasises the form and texture of the subject matter. The photo is behind glass in a gallery, where many people see it every day (and if you subscribe to APUG you'll find loads of pictures like this from people who might well describe themselves as fine art photographers).

Now imagine a large black and white photo of a glass bottle, etc, etc, full range of tones, etc. The difference is that this bottle has some text on it, at the bottom of the image is more text that says something about perfume or aftershave, and in this case it is behind glass on the side of a bus stop, where many people see it every day.

So, do you see the difference? Images have something in common, primary intention is very different. Did the photographer in the second case take the photo just to satisfy a creative urge and create a pleasing image? Not really, and that is the distinction. Doesn't seem like a lot, does it?

 

[skieur]

:lmao::lmao::lmao: This is pretty funny! No one so far has the slightest conception of what art, photography or fine art is all about, in terms of how it is evaluated for inclusion in higher end photo magazines or galleries.

Reduces the competition! :lmao::lmao::lmao:

skieur

 

[JHF Photography]

So, do you see the difference? Images have something in common, primary intention is very different. Did the photographer in the second case take the photo just to satisfy a creative urge and create a pleasing image? Not really, and that is the distinction. Doesn't seem like a lot, does it?

First of all, I think you misunderstood what was behind my question a bit. I wasn't asking the question as a student asks to seek an answer, I was posing it more to give you some food for thought. (Not saying I know everything and am adverse to learning.... just trying to explain my point a bit better)

Now, I'm going to disagree with you a bit on this one. Using your analogy, I don't feel there is any real difference between the images you've described. With the second photo described, the original photo itself (before the words were added and it was placed in a bus stop) is no different than the first example you gave. The artists intent was to render an image that would "emphasize the form and texture of the subject matter", albeit with a different target audience. The addition of words and location are secondary to the creation of the original image. True, the photographer took the image with the intent of earning money from advertising, but how is this different than a student making the image with the intent to earn a degree?

So again returning to the question posed by Fiendish Astronaut, I will pose "does this mean if you are a photographer making art for commercial use, it is no longer art?"

An interesting article for you to read on this thought as well.... http://www.digitalphotopro.com/studio/click-chic.html
And for those who don't care to read the whole article, here's a quote from Sarah Silver, commercial photographer:

“When you think of art as a process, not as the end game of a check or a magazine publication, or up on a wall or in a gallery somewhere, but as a process, then there’s no line to draw between commercial and fine art. You’re focused on the process and you believe that from start to finish as a journey, whether or not you’re dealing with an art director or you’re painting in a studio. You conceptualize the idea and you execute it. That process is art.”

Sabbath999: LOL - what you said makes sense to me. As long as it looks good.... does the end label really make a difference?



Skieur: :lmao::lmao: Hmmmm...... your post isn't quite as informative as they usually are.... LOL!! Perhaps you'd care to join the discussion then? I'm always game to learn, so feel free to teach. :er:




Jason

 

[noob873]

In my photoclass our teacher called the last project we did fine art, the shooting style of david hockney.
Heres what I did:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=109561
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112652

I always thought of fine art as the more surreal stuff, or something that takes more thought to understand maybe? Cant describe haha.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

No one so far has the slightest conception of what art, photography or fine art is all about, in terms of how it is evaluated for inclusion in higher end photo magazines or galleries.

'Art' per se is about self-expression and interpretation. It is an idea, an emotion, a point of view. And the motivation behind it is important. Doing the thing for it's own sake or your own pleasure is all it takes. Art in the purest sense has no purpose and no real function.
It is this that differentiates 'art' from 'not-art'.
If something is created for a specific purpose then it disqualifies itself. This is why advertising, fashion and the rest of the 'commercial arts' cannot be considered as 'true' art. They produce products, not art.
These disciplines can take some of the surface values and masquerade as art - but that is all they can do.
And this is where a lot of people get confused. If something looks like art then they think it is art - because they do not bother to look deeper and see the truth.

As for what makes a work of 'art' worthy of inclusion in a gallery or magazine... that is an entirely different thing.
Here it is not about mood, expression, emotion or pleasure - it is simply about novelty... and bullsh*t.
Oh, and having the right contacts is a big help.
Produce something new and unusual, wrap it up with some glib spiel and galleries will love it.
I used to know an artist called Pete. He taught Art at a University, was a good musician and a pretty good painter.
He decided one day to try and sell his work so he took some pictures to the galleries in Bond Street (start at the top is always a good plan).
He visited them all and, whilst they liked his pictures and said he had some talent, they didn't want to sell them. His work wasn't in keeping with their image.
Pete had a few drinks and realised he was going about it all wrong. So he got an actor friend to put on a suit and represent him.
Pete dressed up in stripey trousers, spangled waiscoat, guitar, drum on his back and became Jack Flash The One Man Band.
Then they went back to the Bond Street galleries.
The actor told the tale of Jack, a poor artist who busked to keep himself in paint and struggled for his art. Pete would produce the odd twang or toot the kazoo.
The galleries loved it. They had a hook for the punters and three of them hung his work there and then.
His paintings started selling so well he had to get his students to ghost them for him
The moral to this is: if you want to sell your work as art it's not about being good, it's just about presentation.

But this whole thing can be blamed on Marcel Duchamp (though it isn't really his fault).
For a number of reasons he displayed a men's urinal at an art exhibition.
The organisers were outraged. They wanted art, dammit, not industrial sanitary ware.
Duchamp posed this question:
It's on display in an Art Gallery. It's signed by an artist. And you can't piss into it. So if it isn't art what is it?
People have been arguing about that ever since.


And men's urinals can now be seen in every Art Gallery


(PS I've had my work in arty photo mags and top end Art Galleries so I do know how it's done :mrgreen: )

 

[ThomThomsk]

First of all, I think you misunderstood what was behind my question a bit. I wasn't asking the question as a student asks to seek an answer, I was posing it more to give you some food for thought. (Not saying I know everything and am adverse to learning.... just trying to explain my point a bit better)

Now, I'm going to disagree with you a bit on this one. Using your analogy, I don't feel there is any real difference between the images you've described. With the second photo described, the original photo itself (before the words were added and it was placed in a bus stop) is no different than the first example you gave. The artists intent was to render an image that would "emphasize the form and texture of the subject matter", albeit with a different target audience. The addition of words and location are secondary to the creation of the original image. True, the photographer took the image with the intent of earning money from advertising, but how is this different than a student making the image with the intent to earn a degree?

So again returning to the question posed by Fiendish Astronaut, I will pose "does this mean if you are a photographer making art for commercial use, it is no longer art?"

Jason

Certainly advertising photography in particular is full of what you might call 'crossover' images, and has borrowed heavily from fine art. As I've said in a number of different ways in the course of this thread, I believe the most practical way to distinguish between 'art' and 'not art' is simply that if the photographer's primary purpose was creative self expression, then it is art, and the photograph doesn't need to achieve anything else than to please or challenge or inspire the viewer (even if that is only himself or herself).

If the intention was to create something for advertising (or any other purpose), then the fact that the image may also be pleasing/challenging/inspiring and required creative self expression is incidental and it isn't art, it is the 'means to an end' that I was talking about yesterday. Art is not a means to an end, but Sarah Silver feels that she is making art. Well, there are no wrong answers, just opinions with a more or less decent argument behind them - I'll find time to read the whole article and give it some more thought.

Anyway, I've offered this definition in a number of different ways, and I've probably said enough. The pleasure in threads like this (apart from the fact that they aren't about equipment and technique ) isn't in finding a definitive answer, but in seeing other people's opinions. So, is there another workable definition of what makes something fine art?

 

[ThomThomsk]

'Art' per se is about self-expression and interpretation. It is an idea, an emotion, a point of view. And the motivation behind it is important. Doing the thing for it's own sake or your own pleasure is all it takes. Art in the purest sense has no purpose and no real function.
It is this that differentiates 'art' from 'not-art'.
If something is created for a specific purpose then it disqualifies itself. This is why advertising, fashion and the rest of the 'commercial arts' cannot be considered as 'true' art. They produce products, not art.
These disciplines can take some of the surface values and masquerade as art - but that is all they can do.
And this is where a lot of people get confused. If something looks like art then they think it is art - because they do not bother to look deeper and see the truth.

This is what I have been suggesting for the last 2 days, although more convincingly expressed. I knew I should have shut up and waited for Hertz to appear...

But this whole thing can be blamed on Marcel Duchamp (though it isn't really his fault).
For a number of reasons he displayed a men's urinal at an art exhibition.
The organisers were outraged. They wanted art, dammit, not industrial sanitary ware.
Duchamp posed this question:
It's on display in an Art Gallery. It's signed by an artist. And you can't piss into it. So if it isn't art what is it?
People have been arguing about that ever since.


And men's urinals can now be seen in every Art Gallery

And I've even seen pictures hung above men's urinals, which could really confuse people in art gallery toilets. Conceptual art, or 'craftless tat' as Ivan Massow put it, is a whole different argument though. Is there such a thing as a conceptual art photograph?

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Now that I have woken up...
To understand all of this fully one needs to look at the development of the various Modern Art movements in 20th Century and the ascendency of Post-Modernism towards the end of it.
And one should certainly read Baudrillard on the subject.
His four Historic phases in a nutshell:
1) Art is seen as the simple reflection of a basic reality.
2) Art masks and perverts a basic reality.
3) Art marks the absence of a basic reality.
4) Art bears no relation to any reality whatever - it just reflects itself.
The last phase is where we are now.
The trainer is a good non-art example, and the English Chav: expensive sportswear that has nothing to do with sport.
In Art it is art that has nothing to do with art and everything to do with legitimation: the promotion of the institutions and systems that sell it. And every effort made by artists to undermine this powerbase founders on it. Kurt Schwitters 'merz' art led on to Piero Manzoni canning his own sh!t and selling it. And The Tate Gallery paid £22,300 for a can in 2002!

 

[Alex_B]

It is all irrelevant.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Been done...

 

[Tangerini]

Wasn't part of Duchamp's motivation that he was on the panel that selected art pieces for entry?

When then does art become art?

I personally believe that art is what happens beyond what is necessary (after we have sheltered, clothed and fed ourselves... etc).

But when then does something like a chair become art? After we've invented the idea of pulling up a rock/log to rest ourselves on? When we decide hey it's been invented let's elaborate and make it look pretty?
So then does the urinal become art at any point? When someone adds mosaic tiles or other decorations? Or does a period of time have to pass before our successors dig one up and declare it a treasure from the 21st century? Aren't there people who collect chamber pots from different eras? What makes them worth collecting (besides strange tastes in decor )?

 

[JHF Photography]

And The Tate Gallery paid £22,300 for a can in 2002!

That's some expensive sh*t!!!!!!!!!

 

[ThomThomsk]

And one should certainly read Baudrillard on the subject.

I'm fairly certain I could save time and rather than actually read Baudrillard, I could just skip straight to banging my head against the wall . From the very small amount of his work (albeit the sociological stuff) that I have seen, I think I'm with Denis Dutton:

when it isn’t unintelligible, almost everything Baudrillard says is either trite or somehow — vaguely or baldly — false

4) Art bears no relation to any reality whatever - it just reflects itself.
The last phase is where we are now.

I've been reading about the self-referential thing recently. Despite what I just said about Baudrillard, it might be interesting to read the material where the historic phases are described. Where was that?