Fine art?

Valentia

Can someone explain what the term "fine art" means? I have seen many photographs described as "fine art" but have been unable to figure out any unique connection between them. They range from landscapes to abstracts.

At a recent conference on Art in the Community someone mentioned "fine art" and there was a groan. No one seemed to be able to give a definitive definition. I have looked it up in various places and am still no nearer understanding what it is. Maybe someone more enlightened here can put me out of my misery?

Paulw

It certainly does seem to be a term/catagory that is bounced around.

Here's one definition I found --

Fine Art.
Again Art is the key word in this category. The term FINE ART refers to: ARTISTIC WORK that is meant to be appreciated for its own sake–rather than to serve some useful function.

Not sure really what that means.

nilhg

I think it's one of those things that's easier to get the gist of than put into words, but I'm sure the exact meaning at any time is subject to the whims of fashion.

I read a good article recently about trying to make your living out of the (fine) arts, not just but including photography, it references some stuff that has been running there before but you'll have to dig that out yourselves.

Fajitas!

Paulw wrote: »

Fine Art.
Again Art is the key word in this category. The term FINE ART refers to: ARTISTIC WORK that is meant to be appreciated for its own sake–rather than to serve some useful function.

Not sure really what that means.

As in, it's useless?

Naw, that's bullsh*t I'm afraid!

Fine Art is a term thrown on to photographs to sell, rarely is it fine art, generally, fine art involves a much more conceptual basis than 'pretty pictures' which is what you'll come across. You'll also find pictures of girls with their tits out, in black and white, branded as fine art. Eugh. Nope.


Come to my exhibition on the 5th of June, and it'll give you a better understanding!


In the mean time, check out Gurski, Wall, Michals, Eggleston, Sugimoto, Ruff & Calle for a better insight into Fine Art.


Wikipedia's page has some good descriptions, but again, I wouldn't count it as gospel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art_photography

It's a hard topic to explain over text. The offer is open to meet me for a few pints and I'll go over it all

eas

I didnt go into the wikipedia page, but i think the basic definition is close to how I interpret fine art.

"Fine art describes any art form developed primarily for aesthetics and/or concept rather than utility:

I agree that the "concept rather than utility" aspect needs more consideration.

But roughly, concept & aesthetics are the keys to my idea of what fine art is.

Come to my exhibition on the 5th of June, and it'll give you a better understanding!

where is it?

Fajitas!

Well, concept is a major part, but utility is becoming more of a key item in producing a successful art piece - As in, your art provides a message, highlights something that would otherwise be overlooked, whether it be a cause, a concept or a belief!

The exhibition's in NCAD on Thomas St - I've one installation that plans to involve the photographic process, one of the document, as an artform... More close to the date :pac:

/pimp hat

Paulw

Fajitas! wrote: »

The exhibition's in NCAD on Thomas St - I've one installation that plans to involve the photographic process, one of the document, as an artform... More close to the date :pac:

/pimp hat

That should be interesting.

As for your pimp hat .... I thought photography was your side action, rather than anything else. :rolleyes:

AnCatDubh

LOL - I thought fine art was all about photographing 'finer' things - as a practical example, porcelain - cups, dolls, etc... or a cigar box, or wine, or flowers in a particular arrangement. Typical of wall art that you'd see (much of it mass produced). Much like product type of shots in terms of the setup. So hence I'm kinda getting the feeling that I couldn't have been further from being right. tum....de....tum....de....tum.....

eas

Fajitas! wrote: »

utility is becoming more of a key item in producing a successful art piece - As in, your art provides a message, highlights something that would otherwise be overlooked, whether it be a cause, a concept or a belief!

I'm up there with you on the utility aspect, without it...well it's just art for the sake of it. In other words, wasted effort.

Really though, I think utility needs to be tied in closely to concept, rather than a completely separate matter.

Calina

depends on your definition of utility though...and that varies.

eas

Calina wrote: »

depends on your definition of utility though...and that varies.

well, if you can't brush your teeth with it, it's rubish...

yes, utility can be a very broad concept in itself, but I think fajitas! covered it nicely above.

Borderfox

If you cant sell the pictures to the client they become "fine art"

leinsterman

Valentia wrote: »

Can someone explain what the term "fine art" means? I have seen many photographs described as "fine art" but have been unable to figure out any unique connection between them. They range from landscapes to abstracts.

At a recent conference on Art in the Community someone mentioned "fine art" and there was a groan. No one seemed to be able to give a definitive definition. I have looked it up in various places and am still no nearer understanding what it is. Maybe someone more enlightened here can put me out of my misery?

Jaysus Valentia ... that little leaflet full of dodgy pictures at the DCC gallery last Saturday really had a profound effect on you ... seems like your on a mission to expose the fraudsters ...

Fajitas!

Borderfox wrote: »

If you cant sell the pictures to the client they become "fine art"

To be very honest, I'd consider that offensive.

Having studied the whole 'Fine Art' 'thing' for four years, it's not a case of something you can't sell to a client. It's not made for the purpose of selling to a client. It's about conceptuality, being more than just a pretty photograph.

I'd never force opinions of art on anyone, but saying '"if you can't sell the picture to the client they become "fine art"" is completely wrong.

As for your pimp hat .... I thought photography was your side action, rather than anything else.

Yes and no - Photography, I use as a profession, however it's become the most natural thing I have to produce art with. I'd see my professional style as completely different to what I'd consider my art.

Borderfox

Its only a joke Al

charybdis

As I understand it:

Photography that isn't considered "fine art" is in some way representative or descriptive of the subject explicitly or contextually. The photograph serves the subject.

"Fine art" photography is made with the intention of creating material possessing an inherent aesthetic or expressive quality and downplays the unavoidable representative nature of photography. The subject serves the photograph.

Then again, I can't think of a reason why the term "art photography" isn't equally or more applicable to what I'm describing than "fine art photography"; perhaps it is to avoid the implication that other forms of photography are somehow inartistic or devoid of aesthetic qualities.

Carrigman

It's a poncey term and anyone that describes their work as "fine art" should be shunned by all right thinking people.

If pressed, I'd say "fine art" is art that is a cut above the rest. As in, "look at that girl - she's a fine thing!"

:-)

Valentia

I'm still no closer to an understanding I'm afraid ;-(

Interesting someone mentioned "art photography". What's that? Would any of my photographs be considered art? Or would I need to run a few filters over them in photoshop first. I'm thinking of a rain shower outside my window for example. A "straight" photo of that wouldn't be considered "art", would it? Whereas maybe if I did something like this I may even have created a piece of "fine art" without knowing it??

eas

I think a good bit of your photography is art already, without the ps filters. To me, the only guideline is that someone appreciates the fact that a photograph is the result of a creative process, or maybe even just appreciate a photograph full stop.

I do think most people there days appreciate photography as art, no matter how easons classify it.

IMO - fine art on the other hand, needs a much deeper understanding, both by artist and viewer.

Duchovny

eas wrote: »

I think a good bit of your photography is art already, without the ps filters. To me, the only guideline is that someone appreciates the fact that a photograph is the result of a creative process, or maybe even just appreciate a photograph full stop.

I do think most people there days appreciate photography as art, no matter how easons classify it.

IMO - fine art on the other hand, needs a much deeper understanding, both by artist and viewer.

Whats wrong with the ps filters? :P

Fajitas!

Valentia wrote: »

I'm still no closer to an understanding I'm afraid ;-(

Interesting someone mentioned "art photography". What's that? Would any of my photographs be considered art? Or would I need to run a few filters over them in photoshop first. I'm thinking of a rain shower outside my window for example. A "straight" photo of that wouldn't be considered "art", would it? Whereas maybe if I did something like this I may even have created a piece of "fine art" without knowing it??

Well, whether you want to portray your photos as art or not is up to yourself, regardless of running filters or not - A photograph can be considered art regardless of it being heavily processed, or not processed at all.

One of the big things to consider with art is why you're doing it, what you're trying to portray or document with your images, and what the processing is doing for the image. As such, it can be considered as more of a statement than just an image - hence why a 'perfect photograph' technically may not always suit the piece at hand.

If you were interested, there's a couple of books that are well worth reading - They might be a bit hard to get in to the first time you're going through them, the language used in them is a bit different from what you might be used to, but they'll bring some valid points together and give an insight into the whole art thing!

Also, pop in to IMMA when you're up over the weekend.

elven

the term 'fine art' makes me baulk because it's usually what people put on their websites when they are trying to sell prints for a grand or two...

"Look! This isn't just any photography, it's Fine Art photography! You'll be the envy of your friends if you have this on your wall!"

People shouldn't have to be told when something is 'fine'. Make your own mind up. Grr.

Anouilh

I have to admit that "Fine Art", whether applied to photography or painting conjures up esoteric galleries manned by ladies in Chanel.

There is a great group on Flickr called "Collective Dream Journal" where the work posted falls into the best of the Fine Art category, I think.

Also, this thread finally got me moving to approach a moderator on Flickr to see if a photo that was invited to a Fine Art group months ago will be allowed in.[IMG][/img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/2883995325_86ba0138fc.jpg

bullpost

Isn't that the thing though?
If you don't know what it is its just a photograph - tag a concept onto it and its fine art e.g. title your image "Isolation 1" and explain that its part of a series you are working on which seeks to explore mans increasing isolation from the natural world .

Valentia wrote: »

I'm still no closer to an understanding I'm afraid ;-(

Interesting someone mentioned "art photography". What's that? Would any of my photographs be considered art? Or would I need to run a few filters over them in photoshop first. I'm thinking of a rain shower outside my window for example. A "straight" photo of that wouldn't be considered "art", would it? Whereas maybe if I did something like this I may even have created a piece of "fine art" without knowing it??

leinsterman

I'm not sure about fine art myself ... it probably had a good meaning in the past to separate certain works of art from others ... in the same way we use terms to describe the different movements (though these are a bit less prone to abuse) ...

... the problem for me with terminology like this is it gets so badly abused by people that the original meaning gets lost ... in fact who's to say that "fine art" was not coined by a commercial dealer trying to differentiate themselves (perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can comment on the origins of the term) ...

I think you can have an endless debate about terminology but for me it doesn't really matter ...

To me personally (and I'm not proposing this as the general definition) ... Art is in the eye of the beholder, if it is visual or tactile and provokes any sort of emotional response, even a bad one, then it goes towards art in my opinion. If someone else wants to call something I consider to be art as a piece of crap then that is their opinion and fair play to them... it won't change how I feel.

The real question for me is what is the difference between good art and good design ... by way of example - for me the current model Jaguar XF car is wonderfully crafted piece of design whose visuals both macro and micro or internal and external invoke positive emotions. This is not all that different from the feeling I get when looking at the works of my favorite artists ... is it art? ... I'm not sure, and I don't know if it is important ...the fact is I like looking at it, particularly the detail of it. It appeals to the artist, the engineer and the boy racer in me ... maybe what separates art from design is time ... will I still get a thrill from looking at the XF 10 years from now? ... maybe this is what separates art from fine art too ... time!

Valentia

I do hope that people see that I am playing a bit of a devil's advocate here ;-)

My post with the rainfall was slightly tongue in cheek, my way of giving my view on what I think of it. It was a way of showing how pretentious the whole thing can be. Of course hammering an image with a few PS filters don't transform something into fine art......unless, of course, I say nothing about the process and present it to the world as such. bullpost expresses my view very well.

Al, I will read up as you recommend, thanks. IMMA and even MOMA in New York, invigorate me but that doesn't stop me thinking that some of the "masters" in those places weren't chancing their arm a bit.

Anouilh

Valentia wrote: »

I do hope that people see that I am playing a bit of a devil's advocate here ...
that doesn't stop me thinking that some of the "masters" in those places weren't chancing their arm a bit.

Of course they were.

But what brilliant arms they have...

Anouilh

bullpost wrote: »

Isn't that the thing though?
If you don't know what it is its just a photograph - tag a concept onto it and its fine art e.g. title your image "Isolation 1" and explain that its part of a series you are working on which seeks to explore mans increasing isolation from the natural world .

I have to present a wider view than the one you offer here.

It puzzles me that you chose a photo that could be criticised on many fronts and not one (of which I am sure you have many) that could happily fit in under the "Fine Art" mantle.

A tag alone will not produce a valuable work.
There are many photographers who post here whose work is artistic and perhaps they could share photos that they think are within the parameters of Fine Art, which is quite a large field.

I was surprised at the photo of the pink rose being awarded an artistic title by another poster to Flickr. I see most of my photographs as fitting into a sort of colourful documentary style and, increasingly, I am trying for accuracy. Perhaps there is a moment where good documentary can become art. However, I think that this should be the photographer's intention, not just a chanc occurrance.

Valentia

Anouilh wrote: »

It puzzles me that you chose a photo that could be criticised on many fronts and not one (of which I am sure you have many) that could happily fit in under the "Fine Art" mantle.

Ah! Now we are getting somewhere. So "fine art" should be beautiful?

It gets even more confusing. As the dictionary says: "ARTISTIC WORK that is meant to be appreciated for its own sake–rather than to serve some useful function."

Well the photo you mentions fulfils that criteria magnificently I'd say. I can appreciate it as a brutal, rough representation of a heavy, loud fall of rain. What useful function it serves apart from that I don't know. I can't see anybody being interested in buying it. Then again if it was hanging in some gallery who knows how it's meaning and worth might change :P

BTW, that definition seems to exclude the selling of "fine art". I mean if it is sold it surely has begun "to serve a useful purpose"?

I was hoping for a few more contributors.

Fajitas!

Fine art dosn't have to be beautiful. Nor pretty.

Art often serves useful functions, whether it be community art, or highlighting various causes - The bienalles are often good showcases of this.

Anouilh

Valentia wrote: »

Ah! Now we are getting somewhere. So "fine art" should be beautiful?

We are getting closer to understanding the topic.

Nowhere have I mentioned "beautiful" work.

In fact, your photo is probably too prettified to fit comfortably into the genre.

The tradition of Fine Art goes back a long way, but the technical advances of the 19th century caused it to flower, as in this example:

http://dore.artpassions.net/

I think drama is probably part of the package and much of the Fine Art work produced these days is very serious, even to the point of carrying an aura of sadness.

As representative of the popular mind, this group

http://www.flickr.com/groups/678563@N22/
probably fits the bill, though "beauty" is very much to the fore there.

mehfesto2

This is weird - We just had a photography exhibition last night in DCU entitled 'Is This Art?'. We had one great speaker/Judge from the IOP who came out and talked about the issue (before telling us who won).

Essentially (in his words), art cannot be defined, really. What you see as art, is not what I see as art. He argued that what he chose as is top 3 pictures of the night would definately be different in a years time - that art is merely a reflection of something we can associate with at a given time, due to our personal bias', experiences and current views of the world.

I thought it was a great speech. Art is what you make of it - nobody can tell you what it is and what it's not. If they do, they're feckin' eejits. :pac::D

Calina

Anouilh wrote: »

...
In fact, your photo is probably too prettified to fit comfortably into the genre. ...

While many afficianadoes would dispute the idea that fine art has to be pretty, I don't buy this statement. Art in all forms is subjective and one person's fine art is another person's garbage.

This statement above implies that beautiful things are not fine art. I would suggest that a lot of people would disagree. I'm not going to argue the toss here, but one of the key utilities that I derive from art is not that it makes me think in a hard way, but that it gives pleasure to my eye.

As such, a lot of photographs, while technically and compositionally interesting, or conceptually interesting, do not fit my definition of fine art.

The question I'd like to see an answer to is where is the line drawn between fine art and art for art's sake. I find a lot of arguments of this nature, okay, what constitutes fine art on this occasion, but the more usual one of "is photography art" has its roots in elitism.

For me the greatest photographer of all time is still Ansel Adams. His photographs are undoubtedly attractive. Is someone going to tell me they are too beautiful to be classified as fine art?

Anouilh

Calina wrote: »

Art in all forms is subjective and one person's fine art is another person's garbage.
...


The question I'd like to see an answer to is where is the line drawn between fine art and art for art's sake.

Within the logic that subjectivity decides value, it would be very difficult to answer this.

The "art for art's sake" movement was vilified as being a form of self-indulgence. It was also considered to encourage craftsmanship rather than artistic expression, as much of William Morris's expresses.

There is much to debate, but I have to admit the criteria upon which artistic judgements are made are not usually shared without a thorough examination of language.

I thoroughly enjoyed this plea for improvement in the case of all the Holy Cows that scare many newcomers to the art and craft of photography:

http://adamthinks.com/tag/ansel-adams/

While it is mildly satirical, I agree, Calina, that Ansel Adams is the business.

Valentia

mehfesto2 wrote: »

Art is what you make of it - nobody can tell you what it is and what it's not.

I agree 100% That is precisely what art is. Now back to my conundrum. Fine art.

Ahouilh, that Flickr link? "Welcome to "A Work of Art!" A Work of Art is a place to display your masterpieces whether they are paintings, drawings, sculpture, digital paintings or photographs, they are all welcome. All must be suitable for a family audience (NO NUDITY etc.)"

Apart from the ridiculous "no nudity" bit all seems fine until one looks at the actual photos in the group. It looks like a bad photo album. Desperate stuff, a lot of it.

The link you gave to Dore is more along the lines of what I would have envisioned as fine art.

I am also interested in how one would describe oneself as a person who does "fine art". I would love to see examples of what people consider fine art and what is not fine art. Their own work preferably.


EDIT: I have explored that Flickr group a bit more and there are some nice shots there but it seems to be inhabited by folks who go in for these "award" type thingies. Enough said.......

Monasette

Isn't the term "Fine Art" a carry over from pre-digital days, when a Fine Art print denoted a print that was printed on expensive paper, or using platinum rather than silver to process and perhaps even had been printed by a master printer (the old days, eh?).

My own humble view of 'art' is any photographer that attempts to go beyond the merely representational is creating art - whether it is fine art is another question.

/John

Anouilh

There are quite a few sites that show how to make "Fine Art" digital work, so perhaps its not fully dated as a concept.

I somehow associate Fine Art with square format photography, though this is probably a personal reaction.

Anouilh

There seems to be an enormous reservoir of photography work going back years in Ireland.

It might be an idea for posters to scan old photos and see how fashions have changed. Even portraits taken in the 1980's seem like Fine Art now.

bullpost

Bought some gouache paint today to try my hand at Bichromated gum arabic photographic printing using digital techniques at the weekend.
Maybe after that I'll have more of an insight - more than likely though I'll just create a mess and be none the wiser

sineadw

I've been reading this but steering clear of responding as I haven't felt very in touch with the concepts of late. I've been reading about the 'Old Masters' though - originally because I saw some crappy auction thing on daytime TV that described an 'Old Master' as anything of a certain size from a certain period (David Dickinson being the ultimate art critic :rolleyes: ), and its kind of gone from there.

It seems to my reading that nowadays the term Fine Art is used to describe someone or some thing at the very pinnacle of their genre? So maybe 'Fine' should be replaced by 'Finest'? Although, obviously, that's still hugely subjective..

Maybe? Ok not *really*..

Anouilh

sineadw wrote: »

I've been reading this but steering clear of responding as I haven't felt very in touch with the concepts of late. I've been reading about the 'Old Masters' though -

It seems to my reading that nowadays the term Fine Art is used to describe someone or some thing at the very pinnacle of their genre? So maybe 'Fine' should be replaced by 'Finest'? Although, obviously, that's still hugely subjective..

Maybe? Ok not *really*..

Certainly, the term has not the importance it once had.
I came across this book and thought you would enjoy it:

http://books.google.ie/books?id=nqtSWqgQx6AC&pg=PP20&lpg=PP20&dq=Eisinger+fine+art+photography&source=bl&ots=e2GjrRjQIc&sig=tNnHY9YzpbhCJ0BDSOBJ8PNztV0&hl=en&ei=DZXjSfh8zZf8Bq6slcYJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6.

Rummaging around in Google Books, there are a considerable number of very well written books from the early 20th century that explore the world of Fine Arts in detail and with insight.
Women were particularly comfortable in that world and it all links very easily with the literature of the time.

Fionn

is it like Fine wine? as opposed to ordinary wine!

so you've Art and Fine Art

i'm just confused now

humberklog

Fionn wrote: »

i'm just confused now

I too found myself getting more confused with each link.
I'm returning to my previously held opinion that Fine Art is Art in a fancy frame.

Anouilh

Fionn wrote: »

i'm just confused now

The subject is actually quite confusing...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/education/edlife/cont-ed.html?fta=y