Fine Art

What I'm wondering is, when does photography become "fine art?"

Where is the line and when and how do we cross it?

 

'Fine art' photography can be defined by what it is not. It is not documentary, photo-journalism, product, wedding or some kinds of portrait photography. It is photography that exists simply to express the photographer's creativity and to produce an image that is pleasing either to the photographer, the viewer, or both.

The trouble is that fine art photography can be used for other purposes as well, so maybe the line is a little blurred.

 

I once asked the same question in regard to what is with out a doubt the biggest grey aria in fine art

However like ThomThomsk said 'Fine art' photography for the most part can be defined by what it is not, however this does not hold completely true as many the wannabe and impersonators exist as well as those that cross the ever blured line form one to the other with out knowing it.

In truth one can not cross the line at will as it can not be found or defined, One will find them self on one side or the other when the image take it's place in the world.

Shoot for the line and the shot will miss, shoot in it's general direction and the shot will hit something in the right place.

 

But therin lies the problem. What you call fine art photography can be all that if the photographer wishes to express himself so. The problem comes from the problem of defining art itself. What is art? Why is a hoover in a gallery a piece of art and outside it's just a hoover? Why is a piece of canvas with blue paint by Yves Klein art and when I do it it's just a piece of canvas with blue paint?

We don't really know. That's the whole problem. And it's up to you as a viewer to define for yourself if you think it is art or not. Because if you do then it is. For you.

 

The all knowing Wikipedia version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art

this sums it up well... self expression.

 

Personally, I find it much more important to determine if the picture is GOOD than whether it is "fine art".

But that is me.

 

Point. But what is Good? And how can you tell which good is right?

 

fine art/art is defined by the viewer if someone likes it for being different/spectacular etc your picture becomes popular and well know and maybe entereing the art side of photography.

although maybe what i desccribed is just a good photographer, I dont Know

 

Apparently this is fine art on the front page of this site http://www.ruthmayer.com/

to me however something like this is fine art http://images.google.com/imgres?img...firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&sa=G

sorry these are not photos but paintings

 

I've always hated that term "fine art". I just get this image in my head of pretentious snobs hanging out at galleries, drinking wine, trying to be seen. And a lot of so called 'fine art' is really crap.. of course, that's my opinion..

To me, fine art can be anything depending on how the viewer interprets it. Example, Henri Cartier Bresson's photos are generally considered 'street' photography, but I don't see how something like that couldn't be considered fine art as well...

Maybe it becomes "fine art" when you put it in a matted frame and mount it on a wall... *shrug* I went to the Getty museum once, they had photos that were all snapshots on the walls, but the catch was, they were from the 40's-50's and presented as the rest of the gallery's art. So does age make them fine art? (they 'were' pretty interesting)

 

Self expression, yes (one of the points I was making), but that Wiki definition also usefully says "Ultimately, the term fine in 'fine art' comes from the concept of final cause, or purpose, or end, in the philosophy of Aristotle. The final cause of fine art is the art object itself; it is not a means to another end except perhaps to please those who behold it."

And that last part was the other point I was making. Its primary purpose is not a means to an end, the photograph *is* the end.

 

Well, the term "fine art" seems to be specifically used to define artworks that don't primarily aim to be anything else. Whether something is "art" is not quite the same question (2 minutes on Google will show how long there has been debate about whether photography can be art at all, for example). Clearly something which was created as "fine art" can also be used in, say, advertising, but not necessarily vice versa (at least in what seems to be the generally accepted meaning of the term). The photographer's intention appears to be important to whether the term is applicable.