# Fine Art Photography



## W.Y.Photo (Sep 29, 2015)

When it comes to photography I love doing it all: Working for big-wig clients who want something very specific done that they are unable to create themselves. Getting a client who is willing to toss me complete creative control. Working with Models and doing consumer level portrait work. It all appeals to me!! But when I get a chance to shoot for myself I invest my time in personal projects, usually conceptual in nature, that send a message or express a feeling or idea I have that I just can't seem to put into words. I call this work "Fine Art Photography" When asked what it is.. other than "Personnel Project", (which sometimes doesn't fit the circumstance in which the project is being spoken about) "Fine Art" seems to be the only other term there is for work of such a nature.

       I've never liked the term Fine Art.. It often doesn't seem like the proper description for what I am creating with photography.. yet it's become such a commonly used word in the photography world that I have begun to identify my (as well as other photographers) work with it.

       So what makes a photograph "Fine Art"? Can a personal project of mine that is very commercially oriented or a project I make specifically to be displayed on social media be considered "Fine Art" with the same confidence as a project made for a formal art show or book? What is "Fine Art" anyways?


----------



## KmH (Sep 29, 2015)

Whatever anyone wants it to be.

There are no art rules of nature like there are in pursuits like math and physics.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Sep 29, 2015)

Any answer to this question is subjective, it will vary from person to person, it is one of those grey areas that is definitely up for debate   For me, fine art photography is any photograph taken for any purpose other than pure documentation.  Fine art is the culmination of all of the decisions the artist has made along the way including how much or how little control they take over the process each step of the way.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 29, 2015)

I don't know much about art, but I know what I like and that's fine!


----------



## Vtec44 (Sep 29, 2015)

Wikipedia - "It is *photography* with fewer aesthetic restrictions which allows unlimited freedom to pursue unique visual expressions and ideas. It's personal work that's intended for galleries, museums or collectors."


----------



## otherprof (Sep 29, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> When it comes to photography I love doing it all: Working for big-wig clients who want something very specific done that they are unable to create themselves. Getting a client who is willing to toss me complete creative control. Working with Models and doing consumer level portrait work. It all appeals to me!! But when I get a chance to shoot for myself I invest my time in personal projects, usually conceptual in nature, that send a message or express a feeling or idea I have that I just can't seem to put into words. I call this work "Fine Art Photography" When asked what it is.. other than "Personnel Project", (which sometimes doesn't fit the circumstance in which the project is being spoken about) "Fine Art" seems to be the only other term there is for work of such a nature.
> 
> I've never liked the term Fine Art.. It often doesn't seem like the proper description for what I am creating with photography.. yet it's become such a commonly used word in the photography world that I have begun to identify my (as well as other photographers) work with it.
> 
> So what makes a photograph "Fine Art"? Can a personal project of mine that is very commercially oriented or a project I make specifically to be displayed on social media be considered "Fine Art" with the same confidence as a project made for a formal art show or book? What is "Fine Art" anyways?



I once saw a fabulous quilt show which included a sphere, about 12 feet in diameter, covered in quilt. In effect it was a huge, spherical quilt. It included a note from the quilter saying "This quilt is absolutely useless, so it must be a work of art."

Then I saw a stainless steel girder outside the Whitney Museum, years ago, with a plaque that quoted the artist, Walter De la Maria, reading "This stainless steel bar is only a stainless steel bar unless accompanied by this signed statement by the artist, in which case it is a work of art."

These two quotes are about "art" and I don't even dare think about what makes something fine art. Worth looking at? Art as contrasted with craft? Bringing in the word creative just introduces another layer of subjectivity. How many "creative artists" are just one trick ponies? Does copying yourself over and over constitute creativity? (Look at all the worms in that can!!)


----------



## gsgary (Sep 29, 2015)

For me fine art does not include anything digital


----------



## Buckster (Sep 29, 2015)

Wiki's article on "Fine Art" is quite interesting: Fine art - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On Fine Art: 





			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> One definition of _fine art_ is "a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic and intellectual purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture." In that sense, there are conceptual differences between the _Fine Arts_ and the _Applied Arts_. As originally conceived, and as understood for much of the modern era, the perception of aesthetic qualities required a refined judgment usually referred to as having good taste, which differentiated fine art from popular art and entertainment. However, in the Postmodern era, the value of good taste is disappearing, to the point that having bad taste has become synonymous with being avant-garde. The term "fine art" is now rarely found in art history, but remains common in the art trade and as a title for university departments and degrees, even if rarely used in teaching.
> 
> The word "fine" does not so much denote the quality of the artwork in question, but the purity of the discipline according to traditional Western European canons. This definition originally excluded the applied or decorative arts, and the products of what were regarded as crafts. In contemporary practice these distinctions and restrictions have become essentially meaningless, as the concept or intention of the artist is given primacy, regardless of the means through which this is expressed.



On Fine Art Photography: 





			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> *Photography[edit]*
> Main article: Fine-art photography
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Sep 29, 2015)

otherprof said:


> W.Y.Photo said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to photography I love doing it all: Working for big-wig clients who want something very specific done that they are unable to create themselves. Getting a client who is willing to toss me complete creative control. Working with Models and doing consumer level portrait work. It all appeals to me!! But when I get a chance to shoot for myself I invest my time in personal projects, usually conceptual in nature, that send a message or express a feeling or idea I have that I just can't seem to put into words. I call this work "Fine Art Photography" When asked what it is.. other than "Personnel Project", (which sometimes doesn't fit the circumstance in which the project is being spoken about) "Fine Art" seems to be the only other term there is for work of such a nature.
> ...



Good point. especially with such an ambiguous word as "Fine". Like.. what does that constitute?? When someone says fine they either mean acceptable or extraordinary, In most cases I guess you could say that "Fine Art" should only be an umbrella term for exceptional artwork; however.. that is most definitely not the case based off of its current usage; this either means everyone's calling their work "acceptable, but not fantastic art" or that "Fine Art" is essentially the essence of a Humblebrag shoved into 2 simple words


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Sep 29, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Wiki's article on "Fine Art" is quite interesting: Fine art - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> On Fine Art:
> 
> ...



I like that Wikipedia definition a lot. Good find!!


----------



## Jim Walczak (Sep 29, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> When it comes to photography I love doing it all: Working for big-wig clients who want something very specific done that they are unable to create themselves. Getting a client who is willing to toss me complete creative control. Working with Models and doing consumer level portrait work. It all appeals to me!! But when I get a chance to shoot for myself I invest my time in personal projects, usually conceptual in nature, that send a message or express a feeling or idea I have that I just can't seem to put into words. I call this work "Fine Art Photography" When asked what it is.. other than "Personnel Project", (which sometimes doesn't fit the circumstance in which the project is being spoken about) "Fine Art" seems to be the only other term there is for work of such a nature.
> 
> I've never liked the term Fine Art.. It often doesn't seem like the proper description for what I am creating with photography.. yet it's become such a commonly used word in the photography world that I have begun to identify my (as well as other photographers) work with it.
> 
> So what makes a photograph "Fine Art"? Can a personal project of mine that is very commercially oriented or a project I make specifically to be displayed on social media be considered "Fine Art" with the same confidence as a project made for a formal art show or book? What is "Fine Art" anyways?




I'm not really sure if this is gonna help, but when I have to think of photography in terms of definitions, I tend to think of it in 1 of 3 categories.  While this may be rather obvious, first and foremost you have the "snap shot".  In my opinion, these are images that are either shot by folks who are inexperienced, or even people who may be well seasoned professionals who are simply on "vacation" or just a family outing.   Such images can range from truly elaborate and beautiful to "why didn't you delete that while it was still in the camera?" (LOL).  As far as I'm concerned, there's NOTHING wrong with snapshots...they often make for some of the best memories and keepsakes.  That said, most of the time...with my own work at least...I don't consider snapshots as anything I'd go to the bother of trying to frame either.  -If- they get printed, the prints usually end up stuffed in a desk drawer to be pulled out when family or friends come over for holidays.

Once you move beyond the snap shot, I think of photography in terms of either photojournalism or art.  To me these are two rather distinct disciplines.  The photojournalist for example, has a dedication to "the truth".  The purpose of their image is to truthfully represent an event.  That's not to say that photojournalism can't be done with a degree of artistic flair...if anything that's perhaps what sets many photojournalists apart as being worthy of mention.  That's not however the primary goal of a photojournalist (at least it shouldn't be).  On a personal level, I do in fact have the utmost respect for photojournalism...my father worked for a major Cleveland newspaper for over 40 years, so journalism as a whole is something I grew up with.  That said, it's not what I do personally.  I'm an artist.  While I don't typically refine that definition any more than that, when I have to narrow it down, I'm a _digital _artist...I use digital cameras and a digital darkroom to "create" my images (I also do extensive work in Photoshop and Illustrator and I also do 3D modeling and animation and some degree of video work...I'm a musician too).  Sometimes those images are fairly representative of what came off the camera, sometimes they may be rather extensive manipulations or composites.  My "goal" as a digital artist, be it photography, vector images or even 3d animations, isn't specifically a matter of trying to convey any sense of the truth, it's simply to create interesting, if not beautiful or evocative images that _hopefully_ others will enjoy.  For myself, the computer (and monitor, printer, etc) are tools that I use in conjunction with the camera.

With that all said, I do try very hard to avoid getting caught up in the specifics of definitions or labels.  Once you apply a label to yourself, you risk exposure to stereotypes.  For example, as a person who's also an art lover and a rather perpetual student of art history, I tend to *cringe* when I hear the term "contemporary art".  For myself, that term evokes immediate images of a person who spent months and months, painting a tiny black dot in the center of a 40' x 50' canvas...then named the so-called work something ridiculous, like "Man's Aberrational Perception of His Own Disdain for  Personality"...seriously...gimme a break!  Then of course there's people like Jackson Pollak...no...really...maybe I should try selling a paint drop cloth or two at an exhibition!  LOL!  Obviously not _all_ contemporary art is like this, but the term alone does tend to evoke a certain preconception.

I will say that if people choose to label my own work with such definitions...so be it.  If someone were to refer to my work as "fine art", whether it's my photography or my vector work, I can't really say I have much opinion about it either way.  I've done a number of 3d animations based on the work of Leonardo da Vinci, so I suspect that work could be seen in such a context.  I would not however define myself personally with such perimeters.  I'm a digital artist...and that really is about as much thought as I put into it.  I would like to believe that my work stands well enough on it's own and that the person who created the work doesn't really need such definitions.

So with that, my suggestion is simply this; if you're comfortable with terms such as "fine art photographer" (or perhaps even plan to use such terms as some form of marketing device), then enjoy it for what it is.  Otherwise, personally at least, I really just wouldn't sweat it.  After all, "a rose by any other name...".

Just my own personal opinions...please use them only for what you feel they are worth to you.


----------



## KenC (Sep 29, 2015)

Fountain (Duchamp) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Sep 29, 2015)

Jim Walczak said:


> W.Y.Photo said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to photography I love doing it all: Working for big-wig clients who want something very specific done that they are unable to create themselves. Getting a client who is willing to toss me complete creative control. Working with Models and doing consumer level portrait work. It all appeals to me!! But when I get a chance to shoot for myself I invest my time in personal projects, usually conceptual in nature, that send a message or express a feeling or idea I have that I just can't seem to put into words. I call this work "Fine Art Photography" When asked what it is.. other than "Personnel Project", (which sometimes doesn't fit the circumstance in which the project is being spoken about) "Fine Art" seems to be the only other term there is for work of such a nature.
> ...



I completely agree with you on every point you made. Maybe I should ditch the term "Fine Art" and find something I like better.. I just don't know what that better term might be.



KenC said:


> Fountain (Duchamp) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



My Favorite.


----------



## Jim Walczak (Sep 30, 2015)

Well, based on your 


W.Y.Photo said:


> Jim Walczak said:
> 
> 
> > W.Y.Photo said:
> ...


Well, based on your original comments, it sounds as though you do a fair amount of "commercial photography", however as you said, your personal work would constitute "conceptual photography".  With that in mind, I might just call myself "a photographer"...and when someone asks for a more refined definition, just tell them you're "multidisciplined".  After all, as a musician, I play guitar, bass, drums, a bit of keys, some blues harp, etc., so I'm usually considered "a multi-instrumentalist"...pretty much a similar concept.


----------



## Vtec44 (Sep 30, 2015)

Holy crap we're over complicating the issue.   LOL


----------



## otherprof (Sep 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> For me fine art does not include anything digital


I thought it was all over when artists stopped grinding their own pigments!


----------



## gsgary (Sep 30, 2015)

otherprof said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > For me fine art does not include anything digital
> ...


No all top photo artists shoot film


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 30, 2015)

If someone calls my work _art_ and pays me for it, that's _fine_ with me.


----------



## Vtec44 (Sep 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> No all top photo artists shoot film



I shoot film = I'm a top photo artist!


----------



## gsgary (Sep 30, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > No all top photo artists shoot film
> ...


How many rolls do you shoot a week ?


----------



## Vtec44 (Sep 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> How many rolls do you shoot a week ?



Hmm... 10 rolls of Kodak Portra 400 per shoot (in addition to digital) and I shoot about 2 or 3 times a week.  So that's like 20 or 30 rolls a week.


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 30, 2015)

I've always read fine art to be anything created for the sake of art and aesthetic.

A bowl that you eat out of is functional art. A bowl that you display is fine art.

A photograph that you show to family members to reminisce is functional art. A photograph that you hang on the wall to be admired is fine art.


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> otherprof said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



If I shoot both does that make me a half-ass artist?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Sep 30, 2015)

Typically the term 'fine art' has been used to describe painting/drawing, sculpture/ceramics, photography/printmaking.

Metalsmithing/jewelry, fiber/textiles could be considered fine art, could be considered more generally as art, or even a craft. It seems to depend on what studios are available anyplace what is offered as part of a fine art or art program. Usually basketry, quiltmaking, pottery, woodworking, would be considered craft. But any of those could be more generally considered art. I think it depends on what's being done or how it's being used or displayed (exhibited in a gallery, sold at craft shows).

If I print a photograph on paper and mat and frame it (or first submit it digitally to a juried exhibit) I'd consider it to be fine art. If I printed a photo on fabric and cut it up and made a quilt or sculptural fabric piece, I'd probably consider it craft or more generally art. When I've done sports I consider that photojournalism. The same photo could possibly fit more than one category although I find I do different type photos of sports than what I shoot that I'd consider art.

People seem to call something whatever they want to call it epecially online, and the term fine art photography seems to often be getting used in a general way. If you're working on a personal project you could probably just call it that. Is there a particular purpose for what you're working on? that could maybe help determine how you would define or describe it.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Oct 5, 2015)

rexbobcat said:


> I've always read fine art to be anything created for the sake of art and aesthetic.
> 
> A bowl that you eat out of is functional art. A bowl that you display is fine art.
> 
> A photograph that you show to family members to reminisce is functional art. A photograph that you hang on the wall to be admired is fine art.



I like this explanation. Sounds like a good definition for Webster's 



rexbobcat said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > otherprof said:
> ...



I so totally agree with Mr. Ron Swanson!!



vintagesnaps said:


> If you're working on a personal project you could probably just call it that. Is there a particular purpose for what you're working on? that could maybe help determine how you would define or describe it.



Well the social media oriented project is a simple series of images meant to show the world in a peculiar manner that most people don't see it in but is also a simple enough concept and visual stimuli that it works within the 3-second attention window a typical twitter or instagram photo tends to receive.

I'd be lying if I said it was purely art for art's sake. I definitely want it to have a positive impact on my social media following and business, but the work itself isn't fashioned any differently than most of my personal projects.. which tend to be sending a message, provoking thoughts,  expressing feelings, or all three.


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 6, 2015)

gsgary said:


> For me fine art does not include anything digital


 Also it needs to be large format 8x10, black and white, and can only be shot with a normal lens; wide and long focal lengths are cheats and cheats are not allowed.

Also it needs to be a Tessar; more than 4 pieces of glas are not allowed, lens coating is not allowed, aspherical is not allowed. Radioactive glas is OK but strongly recommented against.




480sparky said:


> If someone calls my work _art_ and pays me for it, that's _fine_ with me.


 We have a winner !


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Oct 8, 2015)

Solarflare said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > For me fine art does not include anything digital
> ...



 I've been doing it so wrong all these years. Ansel would be so disappointed in me!!


----------



## cauzimme (Oct 8, 2015)

For me fine arts is mostly about producing a piece of work for the sake of it, because you're inspired, it isn't functionnal, it's simply art, the work in itself and the artistic approach is far more important than the medium used. The technicality isn't the priority, which gave the artist more latitude. It's not about reproducing what you see with your eyes, but what you see with your closed eyes, your inner vision, your soul. You have to get involved at a different level that you would normaly have been.


----------



## Fred Berg (Oct 8, 2015)

Oh, Art is Art, and Photography is Photography, and never the twain shall meet...


----------



## AlanKlein (Oct 8, 2015)

You can ask for more if it's Fine Art.


----------



## ak_ (Oct 8, 2015)

AlanKlein said:


> You can ask for more if it's Fine Art.



More time? or more money?


----------



## AlanKlein (Oct 8, 2015)

More money.


----------



## ak_ (Oct 8, 2015)

AlanKlein said:


> More money.



That's fine. I've forgotten what this thread was originally about. Will read the OP.


----------



## ak_ (Oct 8, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> I've never liked the term Fine Art.
> What is "Fine Art" anyways?



Me neither. It's a kind of hobby.


----------

