OT- Fine Art photography?

32 views
Skip to first unread message

Martin Francis

unread,
May 23, 2004, 6:22:37 PM5/23/04
to
Putting my site together at the moment, and so far i'm having a little
trouble categorising my work- specifically, terming anything i've done as
fine art.

A quick Google suggests "Fine Art" photography is B&W nudes- or just B&W in
general. Anyone have a more useful definition?

--
Martin Francis
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."


William D. Tallman

unread,
May 23, 2004, 7:02:40 PM5/23/04
to
Martin Francis wrote:

> Putting my site together at the moment, and so far i'm having a little
> trouble categorising my work- specifically, terming anything i've done as
> fine art.
>
> A quick Google suggests "Fine Art" photography is B&W nudes- or just B&W
> in general. Anyone have a more useful definition?

Ummm... how about a rule of thumb?

"Fine arts" is a term that defines the paintings, drawings, sculptures, etc.
of recognized masters of a medium. Whatever subject matter they address,
when addressed likewise by photographers should therefore be considered as
"fine art", or so it would seem reasonable, I think.

Now, "fine art photography" has no doubt been defined by various and sundry
"art experts" and "art critics" (they're professionals: they get paid...),
but unless there is a general agreement, I suspect you're free to create
your own. It's probably fair to take into account decisions that are
supported with valid arguments, but that still casts nothing in stone.

Perhaps you can think about it, and put your conclusions as to the
definition of "fine arts" above the fold on the first page of your site.
Just a thought.

HTH

Bill Tallman

Patrick L.

unread,
May 23, 2004, 7:17:02 PM5/23/04
to

"Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in message
news:c8r87d$27m$1...@titan.btinternet.com...

Just be artistic.

Pour a bag of sand on a floor, take a picture of it with a Holga, and
voila, you got art!

LOL

Patrick


Lewis Lang

unread,
May 23, 2004, 10:02:33 PM5/23/04
to
>Subject: Re: OT- Fine Art photography?
>From: "Patrick L." nice...@ifyoucangetit.com
>Date: Sun, May 23, 2004 7:17 PM
>Message-id: <10b2j8f...@news.supernews.com>

That's not art, that's a mess, mister. Now clean it up! The Pidgeon sisters are
visiting us soon and I don't want the apartment to look like the Normandy
invasion.

Felix (I may be dead but at least I know the difference between a Holga and a
Hoagie)

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Lewis Lang

unread,
May 23, 2004, 10:10:33 PM5/23/04
to
>Subject: OT- Fine Art photography?
>From: "Martin Francis" mcs...@com.btinternet
>Date: Sun, May 23, 2004 6:22 PM
>Message-id: <c8r87d$27m$1...@titan.btinternet.com>

>
>Putting my site together at the moment, and so far i'm having a little
>trouble categorising my work- specifically, terming anything i've done as
>fine art.
>
>A quick Google suggests "Fine Art" photography is B&W nudes- or just B&W
>in
>general. Anyone have a more useful definition?

Hi Martin:

I'm not sure how or why a definition of "Fine Art" will help you present your
work -- it either is fine art or it isn't.

Was it done with artistic intentions and/or does it have qualities that go
beyond mere utilitarian decoration or beyond mere recording of the facts? Does
it say something meaningful and/or powerful? Does it make you think, feel,
about the subject beyond its mere surface qualities? Then, good or bad, its
fine art. It matters little how you categorize the work (according to media,
style, subject matter, whatever), it either is fine art or it isn't. Fine art
is not merely a subject or a style, its a vision -- an outlook on
life(/you/society/etc.). Like class, you usually know it when you see it... or
make it.

Michael Scarpitti

unread,
May 23, 2004, 10:18:16 PM5/23/04
to
"Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in message news:<c8r87d$27m$1...@titan.btinternet.com>...
> Putting my site together at the moment, and so far i'm having a little
> trouble categorising my work- specifically, terming anything i've done as
> fine art.
>
> A quick Google suggests "Fine Art" photography is B&W nudes- or just B&W in
> general. Anyone have a more useful definition?

NO photography of ANY kind is 'Fine Art'. ALL 'Fine Art' is made BY
HAND (paintings, sculptures, etc.).

Call it 'Personal Work', but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES call it 'Fine
Art'.

Tom Thackrey

unread,
May 24, 2004, 1:41:18 AM5/24/04
to

On 23-May-2004, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

> NO photography of ANY kind is 'Fine Art'. ALL 'Fine Art' is made BY
> HAND (paintings, sculptures, etc.).
>
> Call it 'Personal Work', but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES call it 'Fine
> Art'.

ROTFL

Photography has been accepted as 'fine art' by museums, galleries, critics,
and collectors for more than 50 years.

Can you name a museum of fine arts that doesn't have photography in its
collection?

Can you cite a dictionary or encyclopedia which does not list photography as
a fine art?

Can you cite a reference (other than yourself) that defines fine art as
'made by hand'?

--
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com
tom (at) creative (dash) light (dot) com
do NOT send email to james...@willglen.net (it's reserved for spammers)

Michael Scarpitti

unread,
May 24, 2004, 9:19:00 AM5/24/04
to
"Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<2Wfsc.56274$0S.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>...

> On 23-May-2004, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
>
> > NO photography of ANY kind is 'Fine Art'. ALL 'Fine Art' is made BY
> > HAND (paintings, sculptures, etc.).
> >
> > Call it 'Personal Work', but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES call it 'Fine
> > Art'.
>
> ROTFL
>
> Photography has been accepted as 'fine art' by museums, galleries, critics,
> and collectors for more than 50 years.

False.

>
> Can you name a museum of fine arts that doesn't have photography in its
> collection?

That doesn't make it 'fine art'. It merely provides a place to see
'photography'. Most call it 'art and photography'.

>
> Can you cite a dictionary or encyclopedia which does not list photography as
> a fine art?

Of course.


>
> Can you cite a reference (other than yourself) that defines fine art as
> 'made by hand'?

Of course.

jimkramer

unread,
May 24, 2004, 9:38:42 AM5/24/04
to
"Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in message
news:c8r87d$27m$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Fine%20Art

Basically any photograph taken for artistic rather than documentary
purposes.

I would argue with Michael that made by hand would include photography as a
human hand is usually what trips the shutter. If he doesn't want to be
labeled as an artist that's fine. Myself, 95% of what I take is strictly
documentary the other 5% might be art or it might be garbage, depends on my
mood and the phase of the moon.

Jim Kramer


Lewis Lang

unread,
May 24, 2004, 10:14:32 AM5/24/04
to
>Subject: Re: OT- Fine Art photography?
>From: "jimkramer" Sophomo...@NOSPAMjlkramer.net
>Date: Mon, May 24, 2004 9:38 AM
>Message-id: <10b3ujd...@corp.supernews.com>

Some documentary photography (Atget comes to mind, so does the childhood
documentary work of Lartique of his family/etc. in the Belle Epoque era/early
2oth century), whether intended as art or merely as record keeping is fine art
as well -- it depends on its aesthetic, intellectual and other qualities
inherent in the work, whether intended or not, not the mode it was shot in
(documentary, commercial, personal work, etc.) whether a piece or a group of
pictures/work should be considered fine art or not.

Some of Rembrandt's best work, certainly a writier with light, if not with a
camera, was done as "commercial work" yet you see no museum shunning his work
because of it. He was a master and his work was fine art regardless of whether
it was a self-portrait done for himself or a commission of a group (Drapiers of
the Syndic's Guild/whatever its called) paid for by others.

Fine art refers to the qualities of the work not the subject or mode!!! :-).

Tom Thackrey

unread,
May 24, 2004, 10:36:04 AM5/24/04
to

Then do so. Your inability/unwillingness to substantiate your opinions makes
them less than compelling.

Al Denelsbeck

unread,
May 24, 2004, 11:24:03 AM5/24/04
to
"Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in
news:oLnsc.72497$Sz1....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com:

>
> On 24-May-2004, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
>
>> "Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:<2Wfsc.56274$0S.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>...

>> > Can you cite a reference (other than yourself) that defines fine


>> > art as 'made by hand'?
>>
>> Of course.
>
> Then do so. Your inability/unwillingness to substantiate your opinions
> makes them less than compelling.


Now Tom, Mikey has spoken. You're being ungracious if you doubt his
pronouncements. Bask I say, bask in the wisdom he has deigned to impart!


[Hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee!]


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

Al Denelsbeck

unread,
May 24, 2004, 11:14:46 AM5/24/04
to
"Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in
news:c8r87d$27m$1...@titan.btinternet.com:

> Putting my site together at the moment, and so far i'm having a little
> trouble categorising my work- specifically, terming anything i've done
> as fine art.
>
> A quick Google suggests "Fine Art" photography is B&W nudes- or just
> B&W in general. Anyone have a more useful definition?

I don't think there *is* a firm definition for "fine art", and in
fact "art" still seems to be pretty much up for grabs.

You might want to define it as something demonstrating one of the
classifications of the art world: Impressionism, Post-Modernism, blah de
blah de blah. These lines can and usually are fudged by a significant
amount, so you can get away with a lot. But I would suggest your "fine art"
images be at least a) well-liked, or b) striking, to a majority of viewers.
This isn't a necessity, but saves you the potential of being labeled as
self-absorbed when you call something "fine art" that most others would
classify as "crap" ;-)

From my own standpoint as a nature photog (which some would consider
its own classification outside of all others), I consider something "art"
when it can be used in a variety of ways, and especially when it can also
be used to demonstrate multiple factors of composition. On my site, the
images I use for the headers of most of my galleries are what I consider
"art", as opposed to other images which are intended more as portraiture or
identification purposes. http://wading-in.net/page96-SalesBio.html and
http://wading-in.net/page100-Commercial.html are among my favorites (the
latter needs cleaning).

Tom Thackrey

unread,
May 24, 2004, 11:53:12 AM5/24/04
to

On 24-May-2004, Al Denelsbeck <ne...@wadingin.net> wrote:

> Now Tom, Mikey has spoken. You're being ungracious if you doubt
> his
> pronouncements. Bask I say, bask in the wisdom he has deigned to impart!

Sorry Al, you're right. I should know better than to take him seriously.

jimkramer

unread,
May 24, 2004, 12:30:36 PM5/24/04
to
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040524101432...@mb-m02.aol.com...

I'm gon'na respectfully (I think) disagree.

I'm more than willing to let the photographer/artist decide if he/she deems
the work done as fine art or not. I see in museums much "art" passed as
"fine art" and I don't care for the subject/model/mode; i.e. It may be fine
art for someone, but I'm not willing to display it in my house.

You would be really hard pressed to convince me that an image of a seared,
charred and split open human corpse in the trunk of a mostly burned out four
door sedan in the middle of a wooded lot is fine art. Likewise, the splatter
pattern of blood, brains and wisps of hair stuck to the side of a tractor
trailer after someone under rode the trailer is not fine art. The same skill
and attention documenting a dragonfly perched on a cattail above a perfectly
smooth pond backlit by a cherry red sunrise might be fine art; or it might
just be a snapshot. Or is it all simply the hidden meanings and open context
implicit in anything we would call "art" fine or otherwise?

In reality "fine art" is a catch phrase; it's fine if you like it and art if
you don't.

Now what the hell do I do with this soap box? Anybody what to stand on it?
I think one of the boards is loose; be careful.

Jim Kramer


Alan Browne

unread,
May 24, 2004, 12:38:58 PM5/24/04
to
Martin Francis wrote:

> Putting my site together at the moment, and so far i'm having a little
> trouble categorising my work- specifically, terming anything i've done as
> fine art.
>
> A quick Google suggests "Fine Art" photography is B&W nudes- or just B&W in
> general. Anyone have a more useful definition?
>

It seems to be a matter of aesthetic and presentation, the subject is
not terribly relevant.

I don't believe it needs to be limited to B&W, and certainly not to nudes.

Is it possible to do a fine art photograph of a homeless alcoholic in
the grimiest section of the city? Why not?

Could a boxing photo be fine art? Why not...

etc.

Fine art photos seem to put an emphasis on static compositions (not
exclusively).
Detail. Contrast. Simplicity. Simple lighting (or appears so).
Lines, curves. Any damned subject.

The recorded image lends itslelf to high quality printing and
presentation. Various presentations I have seen over the last year, in
color (printed from chromes) were definitely fine art and in color.

Cynically, if one puts on a show and calls it "fine art photography"
then it is. Or if you put a portfolio together and name a section of it
as fine art ... then so it is. The market will decide if you're right
or wrong.

The dictionary does not help us much:

One entry found for fine art.
Main Entry: fine art
Function: noun
1 a : art (as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with
the creation of beautiful objects -- usually used in plural b : objects
of fine art
2 : an activity requiring a fine skill

Cheers,
Alan.


--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Tony Spadaro

unread,
May 24, 2004, 1:09:55 PM5/24/04
to
Fine Art is a college degree - to distinguish it from Commercial
Art -- another college degree. IT is an oxymoron, and quite frankly usually
indicates a bad case of pretension. Stick with Art - it was good enough for
Van Gogh, and Picasso, it should be good enough for you.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html


"Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in message
news:c8r87d$27m$1...@titan.btinternet.com...

TP

unread,
May 24, 2004, 1:27:18 PM5/24/04
to
"Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote:

>Putting my site together at the moment, and so far i'm having a little
>trouble categorising my work- specifically, terming anything i've done as
>fine art.
>
>A quick Google suggests "Fine Art" photography is B&W nudes- or just B&W in
>general. Anyone have a more useful definition?


I think it is easier to define "Fine Art" photography by stating what
it *isn't*.

It *isn't* work in one of the well-defined genres of photography such
as travel, sports, photojournalism, nature, landscape, social,
architectural, product, fashion, etc. ...

"Fine Art" photography serves no particular purpose other than to
provide an expression of beauty, or perhaps of ugliness.

For example, rather than using composition to good effect to
illustrate a newspaper article, or to portray a person, animal or
plant, a fine art shot might use composition purely to convey to the
viewer an impression of beauty ... of art. Any connection with one or
more of the better-defined genres of photography is incidental to
expressing beauty - or ugliness.

So if you have any work that doesn't fit the major genres, and has a
certain beauty all of its own, that's what you should put in the "Fine
Art" category of your web site.

...

You didn't say, but I assume this is part of your work for your Uni
finals, or an online portfolio to help you find work. Whatever, I
wish you all the very best.

;-)

Alan Browne

unread,
May 24, 2004, 1:33:11 PM5/24/04
to
Michael Scarpitti wrote:

> "Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:<2Wfsc.56274$0S.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>...
>>

>> Photography has been accepted as 'fine art' by museums, galleries,
>> critics, and collectors for more than 50 years.
>
>
> False.

How so wonderdog? Prove it. Cite sources and links.

William D. Tallman

unread,
May 24, 2004, 1:52:01 PM5/24/04
to
Michael Scarpitti wrote:

Please do so, then.

Bill Tallman

Gordon Moat

unread,
May 24, 2004, 1:55:23 PM5/24/04
to
Michael Scarpitti wrote:

> "Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in message news:<c8r87d$27m$1...@titan.btinternet.com>...
> > Putting my site together at the moment, and so far i'm having a little
> > trouble categorising my work- specifically, terming anything i've done as
> > fine art.
> >
> > A quick Google suggests "Fine Art" photography is B&W nudes- or just B&W in
> > general. Anyone have a more useful definition?
>
> NO photography of ANY kind is 'Fine Art'. ALL 'Fine Art' is made BY
> HAND (paintings, sculptures, etc.).

Absolutely, and this is where printmaking comes in. Obviously, you have seen printmaking displayed as
fine art. I think the issue many, like yourself, have with photography is that it is easily reproducible.
If I were to do a painting (and I have done many oil paintings), each one is unique; the same can rarely
be said of photography, with few exceptions.

So this brings up another issue. If I had prints made of my paintings, would they still be fine art?
Would only the original painting be fine art? How does one define reproductions as art?

>
>
> Call it 'Personal Work', but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES call it 'Fine
> Art'.

Luckily, your attitude is in the rare minority. However, you almost got an excellent troll going here . .
. nice to see you are getting a sense of humour.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>


William Graham

unread,
May 24, 2004, 2:45:01 PM5/24/04
to

"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040524101432...@mb-m02.aol.com...

Yes....Van Eyke painted weddings for documentary purposes....(proof that
they took place) And no one would say that any of his works were not "fine
art".


Michael Scarpitti

unread,
May 24, 2004, 9:21:22 PM5/24/04
to
"Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<ITosc.3191$VJ3...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>...

> On 24-May-2004, Al Denelsbeck <ne...@wadingin.net> wrote:
>
> > Now Tom, Mikey has spoken. You're being ungracious if you doubt
> > his
> > pronouncements. Bask I say, bask in the wisdom he has deigned to impart!
>
> Sorry Al, you're right. I should know better than to take him seriously.

Will Webster's Third New International do?

Main Entry:fine art
Pronunciation:**|*
Function:noun
Etymology:back-formation from fine arts, plural, translation of French
beaux-arts

1 a : art that is concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful
objects : art for which aesthetic purposes are primary or uppermost b
: the objects themselves *the fetishes of the Negro sculptor T are
fine art John Dewey*
2 : any art (as painting, drawing, architecture, sculpture, music,
ceramics, or landscape architecture) for which aesthetic purposes are
primary or uppermost usually used in plural

Michael Scarpitti

unread,
May 24, 2004, 9:22:11 PM5/24/04
to
"Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<oLnsc.72497$Sz1....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...

>
> Then do so. Your inability/unwillingness to substantiate your opinions makes
> them less than compelling.

Will Webster's Third New International do?

Main Entry:fine art
Pronunciation:**|*
Function:noun
Etymology:back-formation from fine arts, plural, translation of French
beaux-arts

1 a : art that is concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful
objects : art for which aesthetic purposes are primary or uppermost b
: the objects themselves *the fetishes of the Negro sculptor T are
fine art John Dewey*
2 : any art (as painting, drawing, architecture, sculpture, music,
ceramics, or landscape architecture) for which aesthetic purposes are
primary or uppermost usually used in plural

'Objects' not images!

Michael Scarpitti

unread,
May 24, 2004, 9:23:54 PM5/24/04
to
Alan Browne <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message news:<1lqsc.41106$Fk4.1...@wagner.videotron.net>...

> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>
> > "Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:<2Wfsc.56274$0S.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>...
> >>
> >> Photography has been accepted as 'fine art' by museums, galleries,
> >> critics, and collectors for more than 50 years.
> >
> >
> > False.
>
> How so wonderdog? Prove it. Cite sources and links.

Michael Scarpitti

unread,
May 24, 2004, 9:24:12 PM5/24/04
to
"William D. Tallman" <wtal...@olypen.com> wrote in message news:<10b4di3...@corp.supernews.com>...

Michael Scarpitti

unread,
May 24, 2004, 9:25:45 PM5/24/04
to
"William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<Norsc.37054$zw.33806@attbi_s01>...

> Yes....Van Eyke painted weddings for documentary purposes....(proof that
> they took place) And no one would say that any of his works were not "fine
> art".

Because they were made 'by hand'.

Tom Thackrey

unread,
May 24, 2004, 9:40:16 PM5/24/04
to

On 24-May-2004, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

"Any art" would include photography

Finished photographs (the kind museums collect) qualify as objects.

I see no mention of 'hand made'.

You have disproven your original 'photography is not fine art' claim.
Thanks.

Tom Thackrey

unread,
May 24, 2004, 9:48:01 PM5/24/04
to

On 24-May-2004, Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:

> So this brings up another issue. If I had prints made of my paintings,
> would they still be fine art?
> Would only the original painting be fine art? How does one define
> reproductions as art?

Much sculpture (particularly cast metal) is reproducible. I know there are
multiple 'The Thinker' by Rodin around. I doubt if you could find many
people who would argue that it isn't art.

Frank Pittel

unread,
May 25, 2004, 12:21:41 AM5/25/04
to
Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: "Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<2Wfsc.56274$0S.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>...

: > On 23-May-2004, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
: >
: > > NO photography of ANY kind is 'Fine Art'. ALL 'Fine Art' is made BY
: > > HAND (paintings, sculptures, etc.).
: > >
: > > Call it 'Personal Work', but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES call it 'Fine
: > > Art'.
: >
: > ROTFL
: >
: > Photography has been accepted as 'fine art' by museums, galleries, critics,
: > and collectors for more than 50 years.

: False.

: >
: > Can you name a museum of fine arts that doesn't have photography in its
: > collection?

: That doesn't make it 'fine art'. It merely provides a place to see
: 'photography'. Most call it 'art and photography'.

: >
: > Can you cite a dictionary or encyclopedia which does not list photography as
: > a fine art?

: Of course.

Why don't you then?

: >
: > Can you cite a reference (other than yourself) that defines fine art as
: > 'made by hand'?

: Of course.

Why don't you then?
--


Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com

Frank Pittel

unread,
May 25, 2004, 12:23:05 AM5/25/04
to
Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: "William D. Tallman" <wtal...@olypen.com> wrote in message news:<10b4di3...@corp.supernews.com>...

Where does your definition preclude photography and require that "art"
be made by hand??

William Graham

unread,
May 25, 2004, 2:57:08 AM5/25/04
to

"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.0405...@posting.google.com...

> "William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<Norsc.37054$zw.33806@attbi_s01>...
>
> > Yes....Van Eyke painted weddings for documentary purposes....(proof that
> > they took place) And no one would say that any of his works were not
"fine
> > art".
>
> Because they were made 'by hand'.

For documentary purposes, however....

Also, paintings are not made 100% "by hand". A machine wove the canvas, and
made the brushes and paint....Few fine artists create their work 100% by
their own hand, so it's a matter of degree. One can slave over a print for
hours, either in the darkroom, or with Photoshop on a computer. - I may not
personally believe the photo is "fine art", but I can see that there is an
argument for that point of view.......

>
>
> Will Webster's Third New International do?
>
> Main Entry:fine art
> Pronunciation:**|*
> Function:noun
> Etymology:back-formation from fine arts, plural, translation of French
> beaux-arts
>
> 1 a : art that is concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful
> objects : art for which aesthetic purposes are primary or uppermost b
> : the objects themselves *the fetishes of the Negro sculptor T are
> fine art John Dewey*
> 2 : any art (as painting, drawing, architecture, sculpture, music,
> ceramics, or landscape architecture)

They left out ballet and photography....:^) I do notice that they included
ceramics, however.......

Bandicoot

unread,
May 25, 2004, 6:48:18 AM5/25/04
to
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.04052...@posting.google.com...

> "Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<ITosc.3191$VJ3...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>...
> > On 24-May-2004, Al Denelsbeck <ne...@wadingin.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Now Tom, Mikey has spoken. You're being ungracious if you
doubt
> > > his
> > > pronouncements. Bask I say, bask in the wisdom he has deigned to
impart!
> >
> > Sorry Al, you're right. I should know better than to take him seriously.
>
> Will Webster's Third New International do?
>
> Main Entry:fine art
> Pronunciation:**|*
> Function:noun
> Etymology:back-formation from fine arts, plural, translation of French
> beaux-arts
>
> 1 a : art that is concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful
> objects : art for which aesthetic purposes are primary or uppermost b
> : the objects themselves *the fetishes of the Negro sculptor T are
> fine art John Dewey*

Some photography fits that definition 100%, just as some painting doesn't -
this definition is all about end purpose.

> 2 : any art (as painting, drawing, architecture, sculpture, music,
> ceramics, or landscape architecture) for which aesthetic purposes are
> primary or uppermost usually used in plural

Again, photography fits this definition. The fact that it isn't in the list
of examples is immaterial: read the definition itself. Ballet isn't in the
list of examples either, though music is: they are using music as an example
to show that performance art - art that exists only as it is being made and
re-made with every performance - is included, and assuming that the reader
can extrapolate intelligently from that without them needing to cite ballet,
theatre, etc. individually. In the same way, painting and drawing are
exemplars for two dimensional art forms.

Peter


Bandicoot

unread,
May 25, 2004, 6:50:24 AM5/25/04
to
"Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
news:C7qdnbEb05K...@giganews.com...

It doesn't - he's repeatedly posted a definition that patently includes
photography within its scope. Strange thing to do...


Peter


Bandicoot

unread,
May 25, 2004, 6:55:22 AM5/25/04
to
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.0405...@posting.google.com...

There must be line missing from your oft repeated posting of this
definition. As it stands it very clearly includes photography - is the

"PS, oh, and we meant to say, it has to be made by hand (including the
architecture bit)"

line missing from your postings?

;-)


Peter


Michael Scarpitti

unread,
May 25, 2004, 9:30:46 AM5/25/04
to
"William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<77Csc.110734$536.19955669@attbi_s03>...

Photography is NOT included, which strengthens my position.

Michael Scarpitti

unread,
May 25, 2004, 9:31:39 AM5/25/04
to
"Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<lBxsc.72607$4M3....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...

> On 24-May-2004, Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > So this brings up another issue. If I had prints made of my paintings,
> > would they still be fine art?
> > Would only the original painting be fine art? How does one define
> > reproductions as art?
>
> Much sculpture (particularly cast metal) is reproducible. I know there are
> multiple 'The Thinker' by Rodin around. I doubt if you could find many
> people who would argue that it isn't art.

No, there is ONE original. All the rest are 'copies'.

Michael Scarpitti

unread,
May 25, 2004, 9:32:52 AM5/25/04
to
"Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<4uxsc.72605$TH3....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...

> On 24-May-2004, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
>
> > "Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:<oLnsc.72497$Sz1....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
> >
> > >
> > > Then do so. Your inability/unwillingness to substantiate your opinions
> > > makes
> > > them less than compelling.
> >
> >
> > Will Webster's Third New International do?
> >
> > Main Entry:fine art
> > Pronunciation:**|*
> > Function:noun
> > Etymology:back-formation from fine arts, plural, translation of French
> > beaux-arts
> >
> > 1 a : art that is concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful
> > objects : art for which aesthetic purposes are primary or uppermost b
> > : the objects themselves *the fetishes of the Negro sculptor T are
> > fine art John Dewey*
> > 2 : any art (as painting, drawing, architecture, sculpture, music,
> > ceramics, or landscape architecture) for which aesthetic purposes are
> > primary or uppermost usually used in plural
> >
> > 'Objects' not images!
>
> "Any art" would include photography
>
> Finished photographs (the kind museums collect) qualify as objects.
>
> I see no mention of 'hand made'.

Well, if you notice, all those examples (painting, drawing,


architecture, sculpture, music, ceramics, or landscape architecture)

involved hand-work.

Michael Scarpitti

unread,
May 25, 2004, 9:33:43 AM5/25/04
to
Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message news:<C7qdnbcb05L...@giganews.com>...
> Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : "Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in message news:<c8r87d$27m$1...@titan.btinternet.com>...
> : > Putting my site together at the moment, and so far i'm having a little

> : > trouble categorising my work- specifically, terming anything i've done as
> : > fine art.
> : >
> : > A quick Google suggests "Fine Art" photography is B&W nudes- or just B&W in
> : > general. Anyone have a more useful definition?
>
> : NO photography of ANY kind is 'Fine Art'. ALL 'Fine Art' is made BY
> : HAND (paintings, sculptures, etc.).
>
> More fantasies?? There is no requirement that "fine art" be made by hand.

Do a little thinking, will you? What is common to painting, drawing,
architecture, sculpture, music, ceramics, or landscape architecture?

Tom Thackrey

unread,
May 25, 2004, 10:34:03 AM5/25/04
to

Which is the original? They are all made from the same plaster model. Cast
in the same foundry. Untouched by the hand of Rodin, incidentally.

Al Denelsbeck

unread,
May 25, 2004, 10:49:16 AM5/25/04
to
mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in
news:2fd2ff8c.04052...@posting.google.com:

> "Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:<4uxsc.72605$TH3....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...

>> I see no mention of 'hand made'.


>
> Well, if you notice, all those examples (painting, drawing,
> architecture, sculpture, music, ceramics, or landscape architecture)
> involved hand-work.

"Landscape architecture" involves hand work but photography doesn't?

Then I suppose I can turn my work into "fine art" by handling the
camera with a goddamn Bobcat Loader...

Hey Mikey! Just for kicks, what does your dictionary say under
"Photography"?

(Stay tuned, folks. The thrashing should continue to be fun to
watch).


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

Bandicoot

unread,
May 25, 2004, 10:56:51 AM5/25/04
to
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.04052...@posting.google.com...

Architecture and Landscape architecture are more or less totally done with
CAD these days. So is a building fine art if the architect drew the
elevations by hand, but not if s/he used a computer?

There are also sculptors (and a few ceramicists) using CAD/CAM to produce
their 'product'.

The majority of modern composers (of serious music, I don't mean pop) now
use computers to produce their notation. Does this mean that the
performance is art, but the music being played is not?

And of course there is the whole genre of digital art - which you may or may
not like/appreciate/understand, but you cannot deny is accepted by 'the art
establishment' as an art form. As, of course, is film-making. I remember
the first Venice Biennale at which there was a significant video
installation: no one was in any doubt of its 'value' or that it was right
that it should be there, with all the other 'art'. Now such works are part
of the mainstream.

Peter


Sander Vesik

unread,
May 25, 2004, 10:56:48 AM5/25/04
to

Uhh.. The 'fine art' distinction is one of 'fine art' vs 'applied art' -
the "art for which aesthetic purposes are primary or uppermost" part.
Other parts of art are in fact dealing with creation of utalitarian
objects that also look beautiful.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Bandicoot

unread,
May 25, 2004, 11:05:20 AM5/25/04
to
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.04052...@posting.google.com...

I don't think you know an awful lot about the way Rodin worked, or indeed
most sculptors of bronze works.

There isn't really "ONE original" for The Thinker, either. Originally it
was to be one figure of many for a monumental set of bronze doors, that
figure itself cast from a mould, made from a plaster model, based on a
maquette... Then the figure was re-created separately from the doors, the
original model for the casting being made by a sculptor under Rodin's
(somewhat distant) direction. That doesn't make it any less of an art work.
(In the same way that the renaissance paintings produced under the studio
system are still masterpieces irrespective of how they were made.)

Print-making too. Is a John Piper etching not art, though the plate from
which it was made is? Of course not, the plate is a part of the process
(and not _necessarily_ worked primarily by the artist's own hand) while
the print is the end product: the 'art'. The fact that 100 prints (or more)
may be pulled from that plate doesn't stop them being valid art works. No
one would call one a 'copy'. Ditto Matisse, Miro, Picasso, any one of
hundreds of artists that have used print-making as a medium of choice for
part or all of their output.

Peter


Bandicoot

unread,
May 25, 2004, 11:06:30 AM5/25/04
to
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.04052...@posting.google.com...

Very plainly NOT the notion that they are 'handmade'. Basket-making would
be art under your definition, architecture would (for the last thirty years
at least) very definitely not be.


Peter


Gordon Moat

unread,
May 25, 2004, 12:53:04 PM5/25/04
to
Michael Scarpitti wrote:

Music can be singing, which is clearly not hand work.

Gordon Moat

unread,
May 25, 2004, 12:56:07 PM5/25/04
to
Tom Thackrey wrote:

> On 24-May-2004, Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > So this brings up another issue. If I had prints made of my paintings,
> > would they still be fine art?
> > Would only the original painting be fine art? How does one define
> > reproductions as art?
>
> Much sculpture (particularly cast metal) is reproducible. I know there are
> multiple 'The Thinker' by Rodin around. I doubt if you could find many
> people who would argue that it isn't art.

I would not, but my questions were directed at Michaelangelo Scarpitti, but
we shall see what his answer is next. I was trying to lead into a more
difficult realm for his strict definitions.

Gordon Moat

unread,
May 25, 2004, 1:01:04 PM5/25/04
to
Bandicoot wrote:

As we start getting into this, we could easily bring Jeff Coons into the
discussion. He definitely blurs the distinction of what is art, or even what is
an artist.

>
>
> Print-making too. Is a John Piper etching not art, though the plate from
> which it was made is? Of course not, the plate is a part of the process
> (and not _necessarily_ worked primarily by the artist's own hand) while
> the print is the end product: the 'art'. The fact that 100 prints (or more)
> may be pulled from that plate doesn't stop them being valid art works. No
> one would call one a 'copy'. Ditto Matisse, Miro, Picasso, any one of
> hundreds of artists that have used print-making as a medium of choice for
> part or all of their output.

Of course, that was my original posting regarding print making. Obviously,
Scarpitti is not familiar with formal art education.

Gordon Moat

unread,
May 25, 2004, 1:02:38 PM5/25/04
to
Michael Scarpitti wrote:

Music can be created with your mouth, by singing. That does not even need hands.

Dallas

unread,
May 25, 2004, 1:09:48 PM5/25/04
to
Michael Scarpitti said:

> "Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<2Wfsc.56274$0S.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>...


>> On 23-May-2004, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
>>

>> > NO photography of ANY kind is 'Fine Art'. ALL 'Fine Art' is made BY
>> > HAND (paintings, sculptures, etc.).
>> >

>> > Call it 'Personal Work', but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES call it 'Fine
>> > Art'.
>>
>> ROTFL
>>
>> Photography has been accepted as 'fine art' by museums, galleries, critics,
>> and collectors for more than 50 years.
>
> False.
>
>>
>> Can you name a museum of fine arts that doesn't have photography in its
>> collection?
>

> That doesn't make it 'fine art'. It merely provides a place to see
> 'photography'. Most call it 'art and photography'.
>
>>
>> Can you cite a dictionary or encyclopedia which does not list photography as
>> a fine art?
>
> Of course.
>>
>> Can you cite a reference (other than yourself) that defines fine art as
>> 'made by hand'?
>
> Of course.

I'm trying to figure out who is the most immature. Scarpitti or Polson?

--
I am a product of The Summer Of Love, 1967.
Lose the wings - then fly to me!


William D. Tallman

unread,
May 25, 2004, 4:30:24 PM5/25/04
to
Tony Spadaro wrote:

> Fine Art is a college degree - to distinguish it from Commercial
> Art -- another college degree. IT is an oxymoron, and quite frankly
> usually indicates a bad case of pretension. Stick with Art - it was good
> enough for Van Gogh, and Picasso, it should be good enough for you.

Hear, hear!!

Bill Tallman

Michael Scarpitti

unread,
May 25, 2004, 4:38:52 PM5/25/04
to
Sander Vesik <san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote in message news:<10854973...@haldjas.folklore.ee>...

Not quite. Paintings that we today regard as 'fine art' (such as
portraits or religious pieces) were not regarded as such when they
were created centuries ago.

William Graham

unread,
May 25, 2004, 5:40:25 PM5/25/04
to

"Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vPIsc.72758$KX....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...

>
> On 25-May-2004, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
>
> > "Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:<lBxsc.72607$4M3....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
> > > On 24-May-2004, Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So this brings up another issue. If I had prints made of my
paintings,
> > > > would they still be fine art?
> > > > Would only the original painting be fine art? How does one define
> > > > reproductions as art?
> > >
> > > Much sculpture (particularly cast metal) is reproducible. I know there
> > > are
> > > multiple 'The Thinker' by Rodin around. I doubt if you could find many
> > > people who would argue that it isn't art.
> >
> > No, there is ONE original. All the rest are 'copies'.
>
> Which is the original? They are all made from the same plaster model. Cast
> in the same foundry. Untouched by the hand of Rodin, incidentally.
>
Is that true? - And if it is, do they still have the original? - Where is
it? Didn't Rodin do the first one in stone, and they made plaster casts from
that? - Come to think of it, it would be hard to get the cast off.....I
guess they could make two half-casts, and then cement them together again,
pour the bronze, and then break the casts off......


William Graham

unread,
May 25, 2004, 5:44:34 PM5/25/04
to

"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:108549731...@damia.uk.clara.net...
They also carve pictures into linoleum blocks, and then ink the blocks and
use them to print the pictures. But after a hundred or so, the blocks wear
out, and they usually destroy them, so the 100 prints are the,
"originals"......


William Graham

unread,
May 25, 2004, 5:56:33 PM5/25/04
to

"Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:40B379E7...@attglobal.net...

With music, as with ballet, there is the composer, and the
performer(s).....Both can be considered artists.....Even arranging is an
art, although of lesser status.....There must be some "art" involved with
creating the casts of a works of a sculptor, so multiple copies can be made.
This too, must be considered of lesser import than the work of the creator
of the original........Some of these people however, are very dedicated, and
devote their whole lives toward perfecting their abilities.....Are you
willing to throw away their efforts, and dismiss their work as being, "not
art"?


William Graham

unread,
May 25, 2004, 5:59:11 PM5/25/04
to

"Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:40B37C1E...@attglobal.net...
And, there are armless people who paint with their feet......


William Graham

unread,
May 25, 2004, 6:01:02 PM5/25/04
to

"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.04052...@posting.google.com...

Few artists get any credit for their work while they are still alive.....One
of the requirements for art (it seems) is that the creator must be
dead......


Tom Thackrey

unread,
May 25, 2004, 6:41:59 PM5/25/04
to

Rodin made a small model from which the large plaster model was made under
his supervision. The plaster model is used to make a wax model which is used
in the 'lost wax' casting process. The castings are often done in pieces.
The plaster models do exist for some of Rodin's work. Some are still being
used to make castings.

Frank Pittel

unread,
May 25, 2004, 6:56:58 PM5/25/04
to
Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message news:<C7qdnbcb05L...@giganews.com>...

They're all art. As is photography.
--


Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com

TP

unread,
May 25, 2004, 7:20:45 PM5/25/04
to
"Dallas" <dal...@imageunlimitedwings.co.za> wrote:
>
>I'm trying to figure out who is the most immature. Scarpitti or Polson?


You're too dumb to figure anything.

Quit while you're behind.

;-)


William Graham

unread,
May 25, 2004, 8:03:12 PM5/25/04