# Fine Art



## abraxas (Feb 26, 2008)

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

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


----------



## ThomThomsk (Feb 27, 2008)

'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.


----------



## Battou (Feb 27, 2008)

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.


----------



## trollmannen (Feb 27, 2008)

ThomThomsk said:


> '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.


 
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.


----------



## flipstylephoto (Feb 27, 2008)

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

this sums it up well... self expression.


> 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.


----------



## sabbath999 (Feb 27, 2008)

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

But that is me.


----------



## trollmannen (Feb 27, 2008)

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


----------



## Rachelsne (Feb 27, 2008)

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


----------



## Rachelsne (Feb 27, 2008)

trollmannen said:


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




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


----------



## bhop (Feb 27, 2008)

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)


----------



## ThomThomsk (Feb 28, 2008)

flipstylephoto said:


> The all knowing Wikipedia version:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art
> 
> this sums it up well... self expression.



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.


----------



## ThomThomsk (Feb 28, 2008)

trollmannen said:


> 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.


 
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.


----------



## Fiendish Astronaut (Feb 28, 2008)

ThomThomsk said:


> Its primary purpose is not a means to an end, the photograph *is* the end.


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


----------



## rob91 (Feb 28, 2008)

Haha abraxas, you're just trying to rile things up, eh?

Ok, I'll give this a shot: your photograph or photography becomes fine art when enough people call it as such.

How's that? Hehe, keep on trucking, Ab


----------



## danir (Feb 28, 2008)

rob91 said:


> your photograph or photography becomes fine art when enough people call it as such.


 
Might be when the *right* people call it fine art.

Dani.


----------



## ThomThomsk (Feb 28, 2008)

Fiendish Astronaut said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2008)

ThomThomsk said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2008)

JHF Photography said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2008)

: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 (Feb 28, 2008)

ThomThomsk said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2008)

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 (Feb 28, 2008)

skieur said:


> 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 (Feb 29, 2008)

JHF Photography said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



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 (Feb 29, 2008)

Hertz van Rental said:


> '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... 



Hertz van Rental said:


> 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:
> ...



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 (Feb 29, 2008)

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 (Feb 29, 2008)

It is all irrelevant.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Feb 29, 2008)

Been done...


----------



## Tangerini (Feb 29, 2008)

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 (Feb 29, 2008)

Hertz van Rental said:


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


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


----------



## ThomThomsk (Feb 29, 2008)

Hertz van Rental said:


> 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


 


Hertz van Rental said:


> 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?


----------



## phox (Feb 29, 2008)

google ansel adams


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Feb 29, 2008)

Hertz van Rental said:


> '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.



Just for the sake of interest then, where does the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel fit into this definition then? Is it art? It was certainly a commissioned piece.


----------



## rob91 (Mar 1, 2008)

Chris of Arabia said:


> Just for the sake of interest then, where does the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel fit into this definition then? Is it art? It was certainly a commissioned piece.



It wasn't about advertising or selling a product (unless you want to refer to religion as a product, that's a whole other discussion), rather, he was commissioned to create a work of art on the ceiling of the chapel.

I agree with Hertz that intents go a long way in determining what is and isn't art though it's by no means a black and white issue. You can certainly have a photo or a film designed to sell a product that can still be called art, or fine art if that's the necessary label.


----------



## abraxas (Mar 2, 2008)

So I'm thinking that "fine art" is something just beyond understanding for most of us?  If so, then it becomes esoteric?  If fine art is esoteric, is the following the "theory of everything" in regard to fine art?



> Five Esoteric Theses:
> I. PERSONALITY
> Esoteric Art doesn&#8217;t follow trends or movements in the arts. Chosen subject matter shows the personality of the artist. Then a subject matter will alter in the mind of the artist. It will be influenced by the memories and conscious choosing. Artist is in a constant dialog with the subject matter and thru this dialog it will evolve.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Mar 3, 2008)

abraxas said:


> So I'm thinking that "fine art" is something just beyond understanding for most of us?  If so, then it becomes esoteric?



Not really esoteric but certainly hard to pin down. It's easier to try to define what isn't art because part of the definition of art is that it can't really be defined.
This is hard to understand unless you have some art training or have worked in the arts.
If you have then you know that you don't bother trying to define what you do because it's not important - you just do it


----------



## K_Pugh (Jul 27, 2008)

Sorry to raise this from the dead but it was a good read and i still don't have any answers lol.. although i feel i've learned something, i think.


----------



## Joves (Jul 27, 2008)

Fine art is in the eye of the beholders or, the one that will pay lots of money for whatever it is. When it costs alot it becomes fine art, everything else seems to be treated like Elvis on velvet.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 27, 2008)

Art banter aside. One can earn the right to call themselves a fine art photographer with a fine arts degree, regardless of our aesthetic judgments.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 27, 2008)

I agree with Joves 



abraxas said:


> What I'm wondering is, when does photography become "fine art?"
> 
> Where is the line and when and how do we cross it?



When: When others (or yourself) think so - for whatever reasons (including a good pitch [line of BS]).

Where: Depends on the audience. If it's a class of 3rd graders it's in one place, if it's the general public it's in another, if it's a room full of professional photographers or brush artists it's in yet two other places.

How: Having a good photo helps but it's not necessary.  Sometimes the accompanying buy-line, setting, or context are stronger than the image technicals and objective artistic qualities. Photographer qualifications or description can affect. And etc. It just all depends on so many variables.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jul 28, 2008)

It's art when the artist declares it thus, and is developing a consistent body of work in terms of aesthetics, process, and concept. There is probably exceptions if you want to beat this topic dead, but that's close enough for me.


----------



## Hawaii Five-O (Jul 28, 2008)

heh the problem with  "fine art" is at the time you create it, it may not be considered art. But  when you're dead, its claimed as brilliant artwork and sells for 2 million dollars:roll:. Art is just one of those weird anomalies sometimes.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 28, 2008)

The price jack after death though makes sense when you think about it. The collection now becomes a sealed body of work with no more additions. If the guy is still alive who's to say he won't start cranking out 5 painting (or 100 photos) a day and drive down the prices?


----------



## Hawaii Five-O (Jul 28, 2008)

Yeah the exaggerated rumors of an artist death is probably one of the biggest worries for a high end art dealer haha.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Jul 28, 2008)

I suppose there verying degrees of everything in life, but Id consider many things art that others probably would not. 

I think it means a lot that the artist set out to create this piece not accidentally and not because he was paid to shoot a commercial and decided to also turn it into "art" Theres a ton of bias in there,
(Although he could be improving on allready existing artistic body of work that the agency used when evaluating to hire him or not) 

Its dedication, purpose, intent, skill, 
but does it speak to *you*? 

thats the really subjective part. Also skill can be debated too, but generally proper exposure, sharpness, and colors are required. Besides that everyone who is trying to speak through their work has a voice, when that voice gets louder and it connects with you, then thats something you want to frame, or buy a book of.


----------



## monkeykoder (Jul 28, 2008)

Art is something that provokes emotion in those that experience it all these high and mighty definitions are bull.  If I don't feels something when I experience it it isn't art.


----------



## jvgig (Jul 28, 2008)

I think fine art photography encompasses all ranges of styles and images that have enough visual impact to hold their own against the image next to it.  If  image A holds more attention, then A will remain on the wall and image B will be sent to the basement.  Fine art is whatever remains on the wall*. 


*the wall must be solely used for the judging of such art and it does not need to be a physical wall, such that an internet gallery would qualify as well.


----------



## xamblin (Jul 30, 2008)

>_>
I have this one friend who defines fine art photography like this.
ahem.
"Gray scale anything."


----------



## solrac8126 (Jul 30, 2008)

http://carlosmontufarfineart.com/

my teacher... here in panama...!


----------



## ksmattfish (Jul 30, 2008)

Fine art is art that has no other function or purpose except to be aesthetically pleasing.  The word "fine" does not refer to quality or value, it refers to the purity of the activity.


----------



## Moglex (Aug 2, 2008)

I thought a photograph was fine art if it was bigger than A3 and printed on paper heavier than 300gsm.











I'll get me coat.


----------

