fine art photography ?
dv
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
c._downs
The question is really what defines fine art?
The medium is of no real importance.
There are volumes written on the defining points of fine art and every
thing from written conventions to political events can be factors.
Each time a new form of expression emerges { dig music and dig
photography are two of the latest } there are nay-sayers that decry
that the new medium isn't art -- this is always refuted by time and
the real art explored and developed.
There are the old quick answers such as .... Nouns like Lighthouse or
similar descriptive messages in work degrade the fine art image and
you need to change the thought to something that emotes a feeling such
as Light house in Morning Light - greatly over-simplified but in the
right direction. Then there's the school that says that fine art
evokes an emotion and explores new horizons. Would Ansel Adams work if
done today be considered the same in importance { forget that he was
instrumental in the influences that are everywhere today } ?
There are just too many factors to determine what fine art is in a
short newsgroup discussion but what you can be sure of is that what
ever determines the qualities of Fine Art will also determine the same
in photography or dance or music.
Jaykhill
Photographs of non-moving subjects, taken by creative photograpers, who
generally own more than one camera, and who have spouses who work for a
living. <vbg>
John in VA
Thomas Cooley
somewhere sometime in history will pay money to obtain. Fine art varies
during the passage of years, popularity waxes and wanes, usually it's not
until a generation or two after artist's death that critics can finally
concur about the significance of artistic work. Hopefully the artist's
work is capable of surviving intact and undamaged for that lengthy period of
limbo. History is awash with examples of "minor" artists who lived a
decent lifestyle while producing salable work, but later generations didn't
care as much for the surviving pieces. Fine art is whatever manages to
survive that aging process to become valued by later generations. (How
many consumers kept in mint condition their modernistic furniture purchased
during the 1950's?) Each generation needs to discover its own version of
fine art, according to what it has available from its past. (Notice how
inexpensive vintage photographs were during the 1960's and 1970's.) Supply
and demand rules over all allocations of scarce resources.
"Jaykhill" <jayk...@aol.comJayKhill> wrote in message
news:20000402184302...@ng-cv1.aol.com...
Robert E. Smith
>
> What defines a photograph as fine art?
>
> * Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
"Fine art" by definition is undefinable. dr bob.
TacitR
Wow. Now there's an interesting question.
People in the graphic arts industry (such as myself) tend to define "fine art"
as "that which is not graphic art"--ie, that which is made for a purpose other
than promoting a product, selling something, reporting something, persuading
people of something, or whatever (as distinct from, say, fashion photography,
or photojournalism, or advertising photography...)
This definition breaks down occasionally, though. For example, I think the
overwhelming majority of photographers would agree that Ansel Adams' work is
fine-art photography, yet his most famous series of photographs of Yellowstone
were done on commission by the Parks & Recreation Service for the purpose of
advertising the national parks system, which would seem to put them firmly in
the realm of advertising photography.
Really, I doubt there is a hard and fast definition of "fine art photography"
that's meaningful. Photography that has stood the test of time, perhaps? But
that leaves out contemporary fine art photography. Photography which is done
for its own sake, rather than for profit? But that leaves out most of the works
of Adams, and Man Ray, and any artist who accepts commissions and/or sells his
work. Photography that is produced strictly for its own sake? But again, that
leaves out Adams, and I would argue that an artist is still an artist even when
he works with a purpose.
------
Onyx, the game of sexual exploration; Xero, the industrial magazine
of art, fiction and photography; and online photo gallery--all at
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Elaine Bureau
with jaggly easel lines. And be lacking in inherent photographic
composition and any object of particular interest.
Oh yes... and it has to sell for at least $300 for an 8x10.
Glenn Stewart (Arizona)
> >What defines a photograph as fine art?
> Wow. Now there's an interesting question.
> People in the graphic arts industry (such as myself) tend to define "fine art"
> as "that which is not graphic art"--ie, that which is made for a purpose other
> than promoting a product, selling something, reporting something, persuading
> people of something, or whatever (as distinct from, say, fashion photography,
> or photojournalism, or advertising photography...)
> This definition breaks down occasionally, though. For example, I think the
> overwhelming majority of photographers would agree that Ansel Adams' work is
> fine-art photography, yet his most famous series of photographs of Yellowstone
> were done on commission by the Parks & Recreation Service for the purpose of
> advertising the national parks system, which would seem to put them firmly in
> the realm of advertising photography.
> Really, I doubt there is a hard and fast definition of "fine art photography"
> that's meaningful. Photography that has stood the test of time, perhaps? But
> that leaves out contemporary fine art photography. Photography which is done
> for its own sake, rather than for profit? But that leaves out most of the works
> of Adams, and Man Ray, and any artist who accepts commissions and/or sells his
> work. Photography that is produced strictly for its own sake? But again, that
> leaves out Adams, and I would argue that an artist is still an artist even when
> he works with a purpose.
T,
To complicate this even farther, did the Park Service hire Adams to do
their advertising because of the 'fine art' quality of his work?
Chicken? Egg?
Best regards,
Stew
--
Photo Web pages: http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart
Educate yourself and stop fearing that which you do not understand.
UNIX: It's not just 'User-Unfriendly', it's 'Proactively User-Hostile'!
Nothing generates so much silence as confronting a person with an
undeniable truth which is contrary to that person's beliefs.
Manual cameras, Luna-Pro's and stick shifts.
Please send e-mail responses to the following address ONLY:
gste...@inficad.com E-mail responses to my Intel address will be
cheerfully ignored (Intel policy).
The opinions expressed herein are mine, not those of Intel Corporation.
Lionel S.
photography art?".
The answer is, "sometimes".
--
Lionel S.
www.isn.net/~camera/camera.htm
TacitR
>their advertising because of the 'fine art' quality of his work?
>
>Chicken? Egg?
Good point.
Even "traditional" artists sometimes have a tough time distinguishing fine from
graphic art; M. C. Escher, for example, made his living as a graphic artist. I
don't think that a meaningful distinction between the two even exists.
T. L. & J. James
If you're asking this as a photographer, save yourself a lot of trouble and just make photographs. If you can sell them, good on ya.
TJ
dv wrote:
> What defines a photograph as fine art?
>
GaryB
Robert
who works; but wait a minute -- I thought everything was
constantly moving??? Even the photos that hang on my
walls. Thanks for straightening me out.
-Robert