Fine Art Photography?
Over the years I’ve come across the term fine art photography a lot and am very interested in what all you wonderful photographers out there in bubble land define it to be. I’ve always wondered if it has a specific and defined meaning or is it just a self declared endorsement bandied around to try and get people to take your work more seriously. Is it a style, an approach, a format (i.e large format), a certain quality of printing and framing? All thoughts, opinions happily received.
Trav
Peter Hill
I see it as a marketing term used to give the impression of quality, as in “Platinum” and “Reserve”. In other words, a term of no substance
Travis Easton replied
Hi Peter, for me it seems to hold more significance when used in conjunction with large format work, but I’ve sometimes seen it used and indeed for a short period of time I used it myself for work of far less technical quality which for me has kind of diluted whatever meaning it tries to imply. Thanks for sharing your understanding of the term.
Lois Romer
I see it as a term used by pompous old farts that attend camera clubs and think they are better than everyone.
Travis Easton replied
So it should be fine fart photography then huh :) Thanks Lois
Garth Smith
I thought it was the centre glossy pages in cellophane wrapped magazines.
Lensman2008
For my part, it would usually be monochromatic stuff, although some colour also gets good mention, but it’s partly to do with the photographer’s status: i.e. how well they have imprinted their style on the art cognoscenti. Names like Bill Brandt, Bob Carlos Clarke, Ansel Adams and Man Ray come to mind, but the style has to be unique and instantly recognisable. Sure, you could probably do something in the style of say, Carlos Clarke, but would it get past the art critics?
Travis Easton replied
Ah that is a good definition. When associated with masters like these it means a great deal, not so sure when it is self declared by photographers who possibly have more aspirations than talent. Maybe it’s a term best received from others rather than self declared. Appreciated.
Melinda Kerr
Marketing.
Travis Easton replied
Phine Phart Photography, ah the phower of good branding. hehe
Lois Romer
lol yes Travis
Lois Romer
travis nice to finally see your face, albeit in small pic. :)
Donovan wilson
if the photographer thinks of him self as an artist and he takes a fine photo then it must be fine art ..i do not think it has to be large format to be art..
Travis Easton replied
I would never dream of judging someone as a non artist, I think artistically we all have something to give. I just think the weight of credibility given to the term ‘fine art’ by the worlds great practitioners loses something if it is over used. A definition defined by a format is possibly a poor one but you can’t argue with the fact that the fine detail inherent in quality large format work can’t but help add credibilty to the claim to being a fine artist (whatever that means).
Cheers mate.
Melinda Kerr
Hehe
Lenka
No snapshots, no photojournalism, no fashion or another practical usage. Photography whose primary purpose is to serve for decoration, and was carefully worked on, from making the original photograph over post-processing up to a perfect print.
Travis Easton replied
Pure aesthetic self indulgence, art for arts sake, amen.
Thanks mate.
Lenka
Article at wikipedia
simonesphotos
I use the term “fine art photographer” in my own profile on my website basically to indicate that I am not a photojournalist. Whether right or wrong, at uni you were either one or the other, that was how they officially distinguished between the different majors, “fine art photography” and “photojournalism”. I agree with Lenka’s point that its primary purpose is to sit on a wall and look pretty where as photojournalism serves more than an aesthetic purpose as does commercial photography. I do not believe that all who use the term to describe their work can be looked upon as being pretentious, I do not claim to be any better than anyone else as stated I merely use the term to describe the type of photograph I produce, I was encouraged at uni to think of myself as a fine art photographer and so I do. If I was a photojournalist I would be just as quick to label myself as that (considering that was my initial major), but fine art is what I believe I produce. Of course that definition will always be in the eye of the beholder and always be up for debate.
photosbyflood
The term fine art photography means that the photograph was thought out well in advance of tripping the shutter. Many time its going to a location and studying it over and over. Getting to know it and what happens there. Time of year weather conditions,time of day, all play a big part of what will happen, Then it is being ready for what happens. Tripods ND filters Grad filters the right lens the right settings auto focus or manual, cold weather or hot weather. Do I have enough battery, is my mirror up. When the magic starts to happen you will have been waiting for it. What is the Focal length do I want to obey the rules ? What is inside and outside the frame of view? What kind of illusion am I creating. Do I want everthing in perfect focus? What part of the image do I want to tell the story. This should all be thought out before you even trip the shutter. Then wait for the right moment and hope it comes.
A !6 megapixil 35mm DSLR is plenty enough to get fine art. Ive even gotten it out of a 10 mega pixil camera, and I have seen some that came from point and shoots.
Jan Piller
Well hell then – I’m gonna start calling my stuff “Fine Art Photography” then. Maybe I can get more money.
Travis Easton
Wikipedia’s definition
Neil Boucher
Interestingly I used this term to describe my predominant style of photography to someone just the other day. Like one or two have already suggested, I used it to differentiate from photojournalistic style and holiday snapshots. I would class much of your your own work as fine art Travis. I don’t think fame or even pretentiousness necessarily come into it. I think it describes photographic work that people would like to hang on their wall. It is art (that is the easy bit) and it is fine, in terms of excellence – something more than run of the mill. As Simone has rightly pointed out, it is a very subjective definition, as evidenced by the replies to this thread.
louise
Fine Art Photography…
must be an image that beckons to be explored…
deserving of time, for the observer to ponder over…
must elicit some interest, evoke thought or emotion…
Nothing to do with pixels, camera brand, lens….which are just a means to an end.
In which case,
It is only the rarest click of the shutter,
that will produce an image, that may be considered Fine Art