I recently became aquainted with a brilliant woman who is nothing but a plethora of talent. Painter, sculptor, architect, etc - plays a scrillion instruments, has worked in best-known Hollywood movies, and knows several languages fluently between American Sign and Japanese, all for the love of beauty. She's also dabbled in the world of photography, of course, and this is where she and I begin to differ in aesthetic.
Basically, she feels that photography is not to be considered a "fine art." I know what you're thinking. Don't hit that back button just yet, please. Her defense is that "fine" art comes straight from the mind of a person: unadultered, unaltered, independent of the rest of the world. In a painting, an artist can do things a photographer can't (obviously she means SOOC photography, which I think is a fair argument), such as being able to capture purpose and expression not limited/influenced by models' interpretations, the abundance of lighting, or unforeseen circumstances. Yes, you could say a painter is probably unable to translate his vision exactly, but her point is that photography is practically cheating: capturing as opposed to creating.
So what do you think? What are the criteria for fine art and creation? The woman and I have had many long, wonderful discussions about this sort of thing, and I'd like to get some other photographers' voices in on the philosophy.
Would you say that a poet is a creator or a capturer of words? The word Photography literally means "to write with light" or "to graph with light". A painter recreates things that he or she has seen before, the way that light falls, the way that colors blend, the way things move, . . .as does a photographer. We are are one in the same, just different tools for the trade.
As my friend would bring out, though, a poet captures nothing but feeling as words are a purely human concoction, whereas light is a physical & natural thing unaffected by humans (so far). Also, a painter's visions are indeed recreations of any past experiences, but if a painting is really a tangible interpretation of a world created by the painter (take JMW Turner or Monet, for example, who create alternate worlds based off of what they've seen, but that could never be seen through a lens).
Personally, I think it depends on the purpose of the photographer and whether or not the image has connections to purely human feelings - emotion, wants, the passage of time... Thanks for replying, Tamara.
What defines 'fine art' in photography? Is it subject, processing, colors? I've been wondering about this lately and it's interesting that you bring this up. If Leonardo da Vinci had photographed the famous Mona Lisa instead of painting her portrait, would that have been hanging in the art galleries? Does it matter that her photograph could be reprinted later and maybe retouched to change it? Would that then mean a piece of 'fine art' is a one of a kind thing? Would the negative have to be destroyed? Then what about a series of prints like lithographs?
And what about the street artist whose work was discovered and is now being documented digitally? Some I understood was being printed. I was told some museums would not show the photos because it was not her who was doing the printing. So, would her prints become the 'fine art'?
There is nothing artistic about what I do. I am a scientist, I have formulas and numbers and I have real tangible elements that I must get right in order to get a photograph.
This is science, this is photography.
My GF is a fine artist, she can create scenes of realism that do not exist, that no one has ever seen, but we (the viewer) can be tricked into believing. If a photograph is altered in such a way, IMHO it loses its status of a photograph and becomes an image and the photographer loses his title and becomes a graphic designer or even, an artist.
Here's a little experiment.
Set up your camera on a tripod or like I use, a bucket, and take a photo, now get the person standing next to you to take the next shot, straight away. Chances are you will have two very similar photographs.
Now stand next to a watercolourist and using the exact same paper, the exact same brushes, the exact same washes, the exact same paint and try and paint the same scene. I fail at this moment when my GF the artist excels.
How is this so? The camera is a machine, it captures the elements, crunches the number, processes and spits out a result. All I did was press a button.
Is photography really "capturing" rather than interpreting? It certainly can be, but doesn't have to be. If you take several people, with different camera/lenses and put them in front of the same subject/scene, they will capture very different pictures. One of them may, in fact, be more or less an exact capture of the scene. But most will be quite different - a wide angle will render a scene completely differently than a long telephoto, as will someone using f2.8 instead of f22. And two people using f2.8 could choose totally different things to focus on, giving a whole different feel to the same scene. If you define "fine art" as the interpretation of something seen or experienced, then I would argue that some photography would definitely fit into that category, even straight out of the camera. Also, a photograph can evoke feelings in the viewer, ones that are planned by the photographer.
So is all photography fine art? No - not all painting is fine art either. While some photography is simply recording a particular scene at a particular time (i.e., some, but not all, photojournalism and some, but by no means all, landscape photography, etc.) I think that many photo hobbyists and many professionals strive to go beyond the mundane recording of a scene and truly interpret it by their choices (point of view, choice of equipment, framing, etc.).
And that's not even getting into the whole area of post processing, which can take a photo into complete fantasy.
@bobfoto But you chose what scene to capture, how to frame it, and the camera settings to achieve the effect you wanted. To me, the camera is a tool, just as a brush is a tool for the painter and words are tools for a writer. It's the way you use them that determines the artistic value of the finished product.
I have handled antique photography for many decades. I speak only from my work brain, not my amateur photographer status.
I see works of art in all media, from all parts of the world....japanese block prints.....oils of early America....etc. Each items holds it's own, in its personal space. The same goes with photographers. I have scoffed at some labor intensive media, and awed beyond belief at a snapshot. The beauty of the light on a cheek on kodak paper can be heavens above the cheek on a wooden panel, and visa versa.
Photography, as an art, and as an everyday obsession, is still fully subjective. I enjoy conversations that temper the eyes of another.
Beauty is in the eye, art is in the eye, and one.....(sorry, @bobfoto) can not call photography fully mechanical.
@spirrowshoot Sorry for the added post.....I just read your reply...
Remember, painting was the only way to express life, love, and earth, until the daguerreotype and ambrotype were invented. Then, the ability to express was transformed, so those that could not paint, could create their visions. I can write for hours......I will stop...lol
@bobfoto Thanks for weighing in - even the scientists need an advocate. I do agree with the camera/machine bit, and it's a rather important point seeing that, since the Renaissance, many influential artists of all mediums haven taken the Orphic stand on that one.
It's interesting that you draw the line between the words "photographer" and "artist," especially after Tamara brought out that "photography" literally means "to write with light."
It sounds to me like your photography & mine have purposes on opposite sides of the spectrum, but aside from your formulas, why do you take photos in the first place? What do you think about the aesthetic value of your work? Do you exploit its affects or do you ignore it and focus only on the underlying (or, I suppose, straight forward in this case) meaning/intention of whatever you're trying to communicate via the camera?
Also, to go off of your watercolor illustration, what if the two photographers were not asked to take pics of the same (visual) scene, but of the same (abstract) concept? Chances are the results will be as different as the paintings, artist, scientist, or not.
@dmortega I haven't thought much past the initial intentions of the artist/photographer, and all the elements of art that arise after the work is made are definitely things to chew on. Thanks for bringing them up.
"Remember, painting was the only way to express life, love, and earth, until the daguerreotype and ambrotype were invented. Then, the ability to express was transformed, so those that could not paint, could create their visions."
Very true! From my own experience, those who choose to alter reality through painting and those who choose to do so through photography have vastly different reasons and even personalities. It's important to bring out that the invention of photography influenced the painters' reasons for painting and added immensely to the rise of impressionism: "why paint to reproduce reality when that camera can get ten times' closer to what we actually see?"
I'm on the side of creativity because the light that bounces off of the world around you is what your eyes see and how your mind imagines that light, can become one and the same through the lens onto the print (or digital image). There is a whole spectrum of artistic images that we are all used to seeing and appreciate, a common list if you like, from still life, portraiture, landscape to the way in which a photographer manipulates the image, either using available light, composition, going by the book or breaking the rules, using digital post processing (or even using film, lets not forget film and and all its charm!) are all elements of the ultimate image. An artist uses the same basic principles, and whether painting a portrait, landscape, using oils, watercolours or ink, realism or abstract, they must still use rules, a point of view. They must build an idea in their minds eye and think about all of the colours and shapes that are required to build the final work. It must all come from somewhere...... So a simple holiday snap is just that, the same as a doodle is a doodle........yet someone may see it as more, someone may come along and call it fine art and sell it for £££'s and I'd say the artistic side of me likes that fact, that we can't really define it as not (fine art) and there are always people that will say Picasso was crap or photography is just picking up a camera but really, is that ALL you do? You just run around pointing and pressing a button, you don't think about composition, aperture, light sensitivity, shutter speed, pov, mood, expectations, what you want to convey to the eyes....In fact I go as far to say that I'd question my reasons for photographing at all if I didn't think about pleasing the eye, recording something out of the ordinary for pure indulgence and wanting others to see what I see.......? Really? .....damn it, I think I'm obsessed! :)
@spirrowshoot thanks so much for the topic....it is refreshing to see some lively and intellectually relevant discussion here. Now I am going to turn right around and contradict myself by claiming that a definition of "art/fine art" is completely and utterly NOT relevant (to me anyway). I think "art" historically could be classified as something that has been created for more aesthetic interest than practical use.....but, that leads to the subjective nature of "taste".....which cannot simply be defined. ok, those are my 2 cents.......
Some thoughts:
I doubt that there is a consensus here on what "art" means. So to come to any sort of agreement as to whether photography is "fine art" or not is futile :-)
I disagree that "painting was the only way to express life, love and earth" before photography. There was music, sculpture, sex.. to name a few other ways.
The term "fine art" has a historical tradition connecting it to certain media, which does not include photography.
But is photography an art? I say yes. The word "art" in its most basic form has to do with skill. I see other photographers with much more skill than I have; they are more proficient at their art.
It's the urge to create that makes an artist, by what means is invalid. Tools can be brushes, pencils or cameras. Cavemen used what they had to document the times, we use what we have to do the same thing. It's our need to explore what we see that pushes us forward. To me science and the arts are both closely related. Discovery comes from many avenues, working together is the key. It's creative thought that leads us and always will. Dreams steer our visions which drive of vehicles. We would never have learnt to fly if it were not for dreams.
Granted not all photography is fine art, but neither is all painting.
Last thing I painted was a room of walls with white base paint.
I'm classically trained in piano and flute. And I've heard this argument for music also. Mozart (fine art) Blue grass (not fine art.)
I'm a big fan of graffitti and tattoos (not fine art.)
Living in DC, I see a lot of fine art. We have galleries full of the stuff. And there are never any photographs in those galleries. No wait, I lied, they do have photographs. And sometimes neon. And tattoos. And graffitti. And....
The medium doesn't make it art or not art. The artist does.
But "fine" art. Well just let her draw that line anywhere she wants. "Fine art" seems more like an elitist term than a philosophical agrument.
After discovering rolls of undeveloped film, they are now being developed and prints are being made. All of her work is being documented digitally. If a museum refuses to show the prints because it is not her vision but that of someone else doing the printing, does this invalidate her work as something other than art? Even though the photograph was the vision of someone else, the person who processes it is ultimately responsible for the outcome.
@bobfoto Loved your camera in a bucket exercise. Excellent analogy. I have an art background and i used to think photography was not art. So in my core, i used to agree with you. However, since starting this photography journey, i can see how a feeling can be captured by a photograph and it requires creativity and art to do it beautifully. Talking about portrait photography in specific...two photographers can, just as painters, capture two completely different version of one person. Everything from the angle, the way the photographer plays with light to create a certain effect, the persevearance it takes to press that shutter just at the right time to catch a certain look in the subject's eyes...then we go into the processing of the photo and you are openning a whole new world of creation.
So in conclusion, a snapshot is certainly not art...but art CAN be created with a camera and by a photographer.
I have nothing to add to what's been said already but I thought I'd share the work of photographer Andrew Sovjani. Below is link to a section of his portfolio. His intro statement is relevant to this discussion. http://www.andrewsovjani.com/galleries/reaction/index.html
I guess I disagree with your friend's limited definition of fine art. I don't think the tool/medium (camera/photography) dictates whether the end product is necessarily fine art or not. Doesn't it depend what purporse the photography serves, where some photography is not art (at all) and other is?
For example, if an insurance adjuster is shooting the tire tread at the scene of an accident to document the fact that the other driver forced the insured off the side of the road, the photo serves a practical function and could hardly be considered a form of art.
But, if Aaron @grizzylsghost is out and about in Montana and he happens upon some road kill, ( http://365project.org/grizzlysghost/the-projects/2012-04-29), and he decides to shoot the scene to tell the story, doesn't it look a bit more like fine art? Aaron composed the shot so that the leading lines would fill the frame and lead the viewer's eye to the deer, which is not an obvious subject at first glance. This gives the viewer a sense of exploration and discovery. His use of contrast to highlight the black tread over the white road lines also helps tell the story.
Is his tool (camera) and subject (highway accident) any different than an insurance adjuster's? No, but the way in which he chose to tell the story through his camera was different, and it was intended to serve not just a funcitonal purpose, but an aesthetic and conceptual purpose. That makes it a visual fine art, does it not?
Then, of course, when you see 365 loaded with photography such as water crowns, creative reflections, light drawings, etc. etc. -- isn't that visual art that is created for pure aesthetic enjoyment, just like pre-camera paintings?
So, I guess I think photography can be both fine art and not, depending on the purpose it serves.
I also disagree with the idea that something that comes straight from our mind is "unadultered, unaltered, independent of the rest of the world." Our world experiences necessarily shape who we are, what we think and how we react. The world necessarily alters, affects and adulterates what we think and what we choose to focus on or create. We are not independent of the world in which we live. That's true whether you're holding a paintbrush or a camera.
Phew, that was a long response considering I didn't think I had much of an opinion on the matter! :)
@rockinrobyn I think all photography is art, no matter it's purpose. The intent to shoot, the intent to create. There is good and bad art, but it's all art. FINE ART is such a horrible title, it tries to exclude instead of accepting. After all most validated artist of today were mocked, humiliated or worse in their day.
A lively debate, but trying to answer any of these questions to a "fine" artist is like using every idea, analogy, metaphor, and illustration you can muster to explain to a blind, deaf and dumb person why the Earth is a sphere and not flat.
I think we need to know what defines 'fine art' in respect to photography. This comes from wikipedia.
"Photography
E. J. Bellocq, c. 1912
Main article: Photography
Fine art photography refers to photographs that are created to fulfill the creative vision of the artist. Fine art photography stands in contrast to photojournalism and commercial photography. Photojournalism provides visual support for stories, mainly in the print media. Fine art photography is created primarily as an expression of the artist’s vision, but has also been important in advancing certain causes. The work of Ansel Adams in Yosemite and Yellowstone provides an example. Adams is one of the most widely recognized fine art photographers of the 20th century, and was an avid promoter of conservation. While his primary focus was on photography as art, his work raised public awareness of the beauty of the Sierra Nevada and helped to build political support for their protection." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art
@sugarmuser I think that's a valid argument (and I agree "fine art" is a horrible title because it conjures up notions of "high" or "refined" or "classical" type art, perhaps? But art is art regardless of form or whether you think it is good or not. I just think the insurance adjuster in my hypothetical wouldn't want the jury to think his photo was art. :)
What Is "Fine Art" Photography?
"Great question, Karl. Here is Alain Briot’s 14-point checklist from Marketing Fine Art Photography:
Fine art photography is first about the artist.
The photographer must consider himself an artist.
The artist must demonstrate control of the creative process and final outcome.
A fine art photograph is done with the goal of creating a work of art.
A fine art photograph is not just documentary.
The image represents an interpretation of the subject.
A fine art photograph has an emotional content.
The composition is complex and sophisticated.
A metaphorical level of meaning is present in the image.
The emphasis is on quality instead of quantity.
Cost considerations are secondary.
The artist wrote an artist statement.
Individual pieces are part of a larger body of work.
The work is discussed in relationship to other works of art."
"If you have to read the caption to know what is in the picture, it is no good" an editor once told me. If you need artist's statements or credentials, who the photographer is or how he spared no cost, or other captions to tell you it is a good picture, you are wasting your money. The photo should stand on it's own, so look at the picture. If you like it, it is art. If you don't or don't know, save your money and buy a motorcycle or fishing boat or new dress or something else you know you like.
Posted by: Jerry Kircus | August 26, 2011 at 11:39 AM
I've always been a firm believer in letting a picture stand on it's own. This particular project is personal so for lots of people giving information on what they are showing makes sense. Even snapshots can be considered 'fine art' if that was the intention of the photographer. If it's a party snap then maybe not so much but if it is quick snapshot of a moment being captured, then maybe so.
...The definition of art is controversial in contemporary philosophy. Whether art can be defined has also been a matter of controversy. The philosophical usefulness of a definition of art has also been debated.
Kant defines art as “a kind of representation that is purposive in itself and, though without an end, nevertheless promotes the cultivation of the mental powers for sociable communication”
Artworks are ontologically dependent on, and inferior to, ordinary physical objects, which in turn are ontologically dependent on, and inferior to, what is most real, the non-physical Forms. Grasped perceptually, artworks present only an appearance of an appearance of what is really real. Consequently, artistic experience cannot yield knowledge. Nor do the makers of artworks work from knowledge. Because artworks engage an unstable, lower part of the soul, art should be subservient to moral realities, which, along with truth, are more metaphysically fundamental and hence more humanly important than beauty. Beauty is not, for Plato, the distinctive province of the arts, and in fact his conception of beauty is extremely wide and metaphysical: there is a Form of Beauty, of which we can have non-perceptual knowledge, but it is more closely related to the erotic than to the arts. ..
I know these parts of the article are really long.. sorry Just sparked my interest. Great thread. If you can't formally define art then it's more of a matter of opinion. Buddhists say that if you read a passage and something jumps out at you then that is truth to you. One sentence may mean the entire world to you, but can mean nothing to me. Doesn't mean either way is WRONG, it simply means that it's true to me, and what's true to you.
Although, I see your friend's point, painting's go straight from the soul and mind to the canvas. I can also see that I have been moved by photographs just as much as I have by paintings. We do get to play with light, composition, dof, pov's, angles, while a painter only gets them, a canvas and a brush.. BUT we have to know the angles, light, composition, dof, pov's and angles to capture art. So we both work hard at creating something beautiful.. or portraying something that means something to us.
@rockinrobyn I do agree with much of this. However, the feeling I got from my friend was that, because Aaron didn't create anything about that scene, he only stumbled upon in and captured it, it is not "fine" art.
This is where the lines get sketchy for me. I don't think it's about the "tools" we use (camera, paintbrush, charcoal, clay), because they all achieve their purpose. It's the subject that's in question; paint is just paint, but when you turn it into a verb you're translating one world (abstract, in your head) into another (tangible, visible). That is what makes fine art for her; she would say a movie script is fine art, but the movie is not (unless it's animated, I assume, but I haven't got into that with her). Photography only captures light, which is merely perceived by humans, not affected or created.
If that is one conclusion, then my argument would be that any medium qualifies as fine art if it's meant to capture (or results in capturing) more than just the subject. It needs to connect to purely human thinking: emotion, desire, time, culture, etc.
Wonderful decision, No one will ever be able to define with certainty what is or isn't art. Art is very subjective and constantly evolving so defining it is quite slippery. Personally, I like to make a few distinctions when it comes to this topic. The main distinction that I like to make is separating the ideas of Art and Craft. Craftsmanship is measurable, people can be masters of there craft and not an artist. An artist creates works that are unique to his or her perspective. For example, Da Vinci was an artist and created the Mona Lisa, in painting that image he made many decisions that were unique to him at the moments that he was painting. Now take a extremely talented Painter that made an exact, or close to, replica of the Mona Lisa that could pass as the original to most viewers. I would argue that Da Vinci was an Artist and this other person was a Craftsman. I would argue the same thing to someone who was trying to recreate their very own Ansel Adams. So to me, it is the intent, are you trying to create something that is unique to your sensibilities or are you trying to be as good as that other person.
While I sparate art and craft, I am not making judgements on their value. Their can be art with bad craftsmanship and there can be craft with without art. But when art and craft come together you have something special.
Personally I hold Craftsmanship higher than Art, If someone has not mastered his or her Craft than their Art will not be fully realized.
@spirrowshoot
"However, the feeling I got from my friend was that, because Aaron didn't create anything about that scene, he only stumbled upon in and captured it, it is not "fine" art."
Have you ever been out photographing with others? No matter how many people stand in front of the same thing, each photographer will not see the same thing. Some will not see anything and move on. The fact that someone sees something no one else does is exactly why this can't be correct. It can take but a spit second to see the value in the image and to be the only one who saw 'that'. Lots of people will say I could do that but they didn't. That is what makes this wrong.
@spirrowshoot I think we're in agreement -- it's the intent of the person operating the camera -- the intent to connect, to create, to inspire, to motivate, to resonate, to affirm..... Some photographers do this well, some don't, but so long as the intent is there, their photography is a practice in fine art. (?)
@dmortega Yes! I agree whole-heartedly with this. That's what I fell for in photography from the very beginning - when we can catch a moment that will never happen again, I call that a successful photo. Still, I can't say that my friend's view on this is right or wrong, because the point is that the medium doesn't fit her own definition of fine art, regardless of the results.
What do you make of this? http://blogs.artinfo.com/inview/files/2011/05/pisschrist.jpg
I know this might open up a fresh controversy so I want to make it clear, I don't bring this up to discuss morals. I'm just interested in what you think: did Andres Serrano intend to connect, create, inspire, motivate, resonate, affirm...? I know people who don't consider this art at all.
Anyway, yes, I do think we agree, but I may take it a step farther and say that it's not up to the intent of the photographer/artist but the resulting affect felt by the viewer. If it expresses the artist's feeling, I call it art. If it affects my own feeling, I call it fine art.
@jsorensenart Thanks for taking part :) I should actually be doing homework right now, but it's so much more fun to debate about the madness of humanity, no?
In a lot of my photos, I don't just passively capture a scene. I shift my body ever so slightly, I move the light source until it creates just the right amount of shadow, I alter the matter in the scene (e.g. move a tea cup half an inch forward), until it looks the way *I* want it. In fact, sometimes I shoot from my mind - I have an idea in my head, which I attempt to translate into a photo.
One could argue that drawing with a pen or painting with a paintbrush is also "cheating", because you're using an instrument to convey what your mind is seeing. How is using a camera any different?
@ladyjane - But I use the same setting for my macro shots that I use for my telephoto bird shots that I use for my landscapes and portraits. I have found a setting that works for me.
@spirrowshoot - Why do I take photos? I like capturing a moment. Stopping time. My camera is my time machine and I can return mentally to the exact moment I took the photo. If you check out my Year Two Project, all of these shots are 4 or 5 years old, but my stories that go along with each shot have not been written down. The stories exist because I stopped time for a moment back then.
Going back to the Photographer vs the Artist. If I were to take a few portraits, some of them would look so much like a Driver's Licence Photo that you couldn't hang them in a gallery, unless you had developed a reputation of being a Great Driver's Licence Photographer, but any, and I mean any painted Portrait will be hung in a gallery.
@jreyna - I like what you said. Hmmm, but... if it matters when taking portraits about how the subject is looking at the exact time the shutter is depressed, then isn't the subject creating the art, the shutter presser just got lucky???
@spirrowshoot I would definitely consider that linked photo to be fine art. I also agree with your point that art may lie in the viewer's reaction to a piece of work even if it was created without intent of being art. I'm having a hard time thinking of an immediate example of that, but I think it's a plausible counterpart.
@bobfoto Ah, I've heard the time travel bit before. When I was little I used to think cameras came straight out of Ray Bradbury novels :) When I see your work I have to agree: the stories are definiely what make the photos. Just out of curiosity, though, do you not give attention to the aesthetic values of your photos, if only in order to catch the viewer's attention?
@ pocketmouse Hmm... It's quite possible to say that when you set up a scene in order to take the photo, the photographer is "painting" out what he sees before snapping the shutter. What do you think about candids?
@rockinrobyn The plausible counterpart I was thinking of was the photo I linked :) It's called "Piss Christ," and for literal reasons. I don't know the intentions of the artist, but I certianly know the violent reactions it's evoked in some people.
@bobfoto OK, I get your point. You approach your photography more as a documentary exercise than an artistic one. But you still have to make a decision about what scene you want to capture. What makes one subject worthy of capturing and another not worthy? It's an aesthetic judgment.
@spirrowshoot@ladyjane - You mention aesthetics and at first, I had to step back and think about a response... over on the "Controversial" Thread I started typing about Words and Photography and this brought me to thinking about aesthetics and art.
For me, photography has been linked with journalism for such a long time. It has often been used to illustrate words, a story or a theory. It has been used as documentation. For a long time, professional photographers have spent their time trying to capture moments in time, people and places and document the way man has impacted on this planet. The home owners who had the funds to buy a camera, would inevitably use many of their rolls of film to capture friends and family doing their everyday thing.
In the same period of time, the art world has seen cubism, surrealism and pop art (just to name a few). Artists have always been paid to decorate, for people to stop and look at an image to hang on the wall. Sure, before cameras the job of the Painter was also to document, but at the end of the day, a painter has always had to appeal to someone else at least to get their framed piece to remain on a wall somewhere.
These painting have had to explain themselves. People didn't want to read a novel with each wall hanging.
So... in summary. My photographs don't need to be aesthetic if I know there is a story behind it. Take for example my last 4 images. The 3 Orchid photos were taken because they were pretty and I wanted to capture the beauty of these flowers... I wouldn't call it artistic but you could hang them on the wall. My today shot has a story behind it and it depicts a young lady using dirty water to undertake her daily chores. This is a pretty gritty shot. I wouldn't hang this shot on a wall, but would accept it in a journal or a newspaper, with words.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
As my friend would bring out, though, a poet captures nothing but feeling as words are a purely human concoction, whereas light is a physical & natural thing unaffected by humans (so far). Also, a painter's visions are indeed recreations of any past experiences, but if a painting is really a tangible interpretation of a world created by the painter (take JMW Turner or Monet, for example, who create alternate worlds based off of what they've seen, but that could never be seen through a lens).
Personally, I think it depends on the purpose of the photographer and whether or not the image has connections to purely human feelings - emotion, wants, the passage of time... Thanks for replying, Tamara.
And what about the street artist whose work was discovered and is now being documented digitally? Some I understood was being printed. I was told some museums would not show the photos because it was not her who was doing the printing. So, would her prints become the 'fine art'?
What defines 'fine art'?
This is science, this is photography.
My GF is a fine artist, she can create scenes of realism that do not exist, that no one has ever seen, but we (the viewer) can be tricked into believing. If a photograph is altered in such a way, IMHO it loses its status of a photograph and becomes an image and the photographer loses his title and becomes a graphic designer or even, an artist.
Here's a little experiment.
Set up your camera on a tripod or like I use, a bucket, and take a photo, now get the person standing next to you to take the next shot, straight away. Chances are you will have two very similar photographs.
Now stand next to a watercolourist and using the exact same paper, the exact same brushes, the exact same washes, the exact same paint and try and paint the same scene. I fail at this moment when my GF the artist excels.
How is this so? The camera is a machine, it captures the elements, crunches the number, processes and spits out a result. All I did was press a button.
So is all photography fine art? No - not all painting is fine art either. While some photography is simply recording a particular scene at a particular time (i.e., some, but not all, photojournalism and some, but by no means all, landscape photography, etc.) I think that many photo hobbyists and many professionals strive to go beyond the mundane recording of a scene and truly interpret it by their choices (point of view, choice of equipment, framing, etc.).
And that's not even getting into the whole area of post processing, which can take a photo into complete fantasy.
I have handled antique photography for many decades. I speak only from my work brain, not my amateur photographer status.
I see works of art in all media, from all parts of the world....japanese block prints.....oils of early America....etc. Each items holds it's own, in its personal space. The same goes with photographers. I have scoffed at some labor intensive media, and awed beyond belief at a snapshot. The beauty of the light on a cheek on kodak paper can be heavens above the cheek on a wooden panel, and visa versa.
Photography, as an art, and as an everyday obsession, is still fully subjective. I enjoy conversations that temper the eyes of another.
Beauty is in the eye, art is in the eye, and one.....(sorry, @bobfoto) can not call photography fully mechanical.
Remember, painting was the only way to express life, love, and earth, until the daguerreotype and ambrotype were invented. Then, the ability to express was transformed, so those that could not paint, could create their visions. I can write for hours......I will stop...lol
It's interesting that you draw the line between the words "photographer" and "artist," especially after Tamara brought out that "photography" literally means "to write with light."
It sounds to me like your photography & mine have purposes on opposite sides of the spectrum, but aside from your formulas, why do you take photos in the first place? What do you think about the aesthetic value of your work? Do you exploit its affects or do you ignore it and focus only on the underlying (or, I suppose, straight forward in this case) meaning/intention of whatever you're trying to communicate via the camera?
Also, to go off of your watercolor illustration, what if the two photographers were not asked to take pics of the same (visual) scene, but of the same (abstract) concept? Chances are the results will be as different as the paintings, artist, scientist, or not.
"Remember, painting was the only way to express life, love, and earth, until the daguerreotype and ambrotype were invented. Then, the ability to express was transformed, so those that could not paint, could create their visions."
Very true! From my own experience, those who choose to alter reality through painting and those who choose to do so through photography have vastly different reasons and even personalities. It's important to bring out that the invention of photography influenced the painters' reasons for painting and added immensely to the rise of impressionism: "why paint to reproduce reality when that camera can get ten times' closer to what we actually see?"
I doubt that there is a consensus here on what "art" means. So to come to any sort of agreement as to whether photography is "fine art" or not is futile :-)
I disagree that "painting was the only way to express life, love and earth" before photography. There was music, sculpture, sex.. to name a few other ways.
The term "fine art" has a historical tradition connecting it to certain media, which does not include photography.
But is photography an art? I say yes. The word "art" in its most basic form has to do with skill. I see other photographers with much more skill than I have; they are more proficient at their art.
Last thing I painted was a room of walls with white base paint.
I'm classically trained in piano and flute. And I've heard this argument for music also. Mozart (fine art) Blue grass (not fine art.)
I'm a big fan of graffitti and tattoos (not fine art.)
Living in DC, I see a lot of fine art. We have galleries full of the stuff. And there are never any photographs in those galleries. No wait, I lied, they do have photographs. And sometimes neon. And tattoos. And graffitti. And....
The medium doesn't make it art or not art. The artist does.
But "fine" art. Well just let her draw that line anywhere she wants. "Fine art" seems more like an elitist term than a philosophical agrument.
After discovering rolls of undeveloped film, they are now being developed and prints are being made. All of her work is being documented digitally. If a museum refuses to show the prints because it is not her vision but that of someone else doing the printing, does this invalidate her work as something other than art? Even though the photograph was the vision of someone else, the person who processes it is ultimately responsible for the outcome.
So in conclusion, a snapshot is certainly not art...but art CAN be created with a camera and by a photographer.
http://www.andrewsovjani.com/galleries/reaction/index.html
For example, if an insurance adjuster is shooting the tire tread at the scene of an accident to document the fact that the other driver forced the insured off the side of the road, the photo serves a practical function and could hardly be considered a form of art.
But, if Aaron @grizzylsghost is out and about in Montana and he happens upon some road kill, ( http://365project.org/grizzlysghost/the-projects/2012-04-29), and he decides to shoot the scene to tell the story, doesn't it look a bit more like fine art? Aaron composed the shot so that the leading lines would fill the frame and lead the viewer's eye to the deer, which is not an obvious subject at first glance. This gives the viewer a sense of exploration and discovery. His use of contrast to highlight the black tread over the white road lines also helps tell the story.
Is his tool (camera) and subject (highway accident) any different than an insurance adjuster's? No, but the way in which he chose to tell the story through his camera was different, and it was intended to serve not just a funcitonal purpose, but an aesthetic and conceptual purpose. That makes it a visual fine art, does it not?
Then, of course, when you see 365 loaded with photography such as water crowns, creative reflections, light drawings, etc. etc. -- isn't that visual art that is created for pure aesthetic enjoyment, just like pre-camera paintings?
So, I guess I think photography can be both fine art and not, depending on the purpose it serves.
I also disagree with the idea that something that comes straight from our mind is "unadultered, unaltered, independent of the rest of the world." Our world experiences necessarily shape who we are, what we think and how we react. The world necessarily alters, affects and adulterates what we think and what we choose to focus on or create. We are not independent of the world in which we live. That's true whether you're holding a paintbrush or a camera.
Phew, that was a long response considering I didn't think I had much of an opinion on the matter! :)
"Photography
E. J. Bellocq, c. 1912
Main article: Photography
Fine art photography refers to photographs that are created to fulfill the creative vision of the artist. Fine art photography stands in contrast to photojournalism and commercial photography. Photojournalism provides visual support for stories, mainly in the print media. Fine art photography is created primarily as an expression of the artist’s vision, but has also been important in advancing certain causes. The work of Ansel Adams in Yosemite and Yellowstone provides an example. Adams is one of the most widely recognized fine art photographers of the 20th century, and was an avid promoter of conservation. While his primary focus was on photography as art, his work raised public awareness of the beauty of the Sierra Nevada and helped to build political support for their protection." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art
"Great question, Karl. Here is Alain Briot’s 14-point checklist from Marketing Fine Art Photography:
Fine art photography is first about the artist.
The photographer must consider himself an artist.
The artist must demonstrate control of the creative process and final outcome.
A fine art photograph is done with the goal of creating a work of art.
A fine art photograph is not just documentary.
The image represents an interpretation of the subject.
A fine art photograph has an emotional content.
The composition is complex and sophisticated.
A metaphorical level of meaning is present in the image.
The emphasis is on quality instead of quantity.
Cost considerations are secondary.
The artist wrote an artist statement.
Individual pieces are part of a larger body of work.
The work is discussed in relationship to other works of art."
"If you have to read the caption to know what is in the picture, it is no good" an editor once told me. If you need artist's statements or credentials, who the photographer is or how he spared no cost, or other captions to tell you it is a good picture, you are wasting your money. The photo should stand on it's own, so look at the picture. If you like it, it is art. If you don't or don't know, save your money and buy a motorcycle or fishing boat or new dress or something else you know you like.
Posted by: Jerry Kircus | August 26, 2011 at 11:39 AM
http://shutterfinger.typepad.com/shutterfinger/2011/08/this-is-an-art-photograph-if-for-no-other-reason-than-it-sold-as-such-and-was-included-in-a-published-collection-of-art-ph.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2doiQRKZjDo#!
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVgwBHFoU94
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEt3hlzHmJ4
Marketing Fine Art Photography by Alain Briot
http://technorati.com/entertainment/article/marketing-fine-art-photography-by-alain/
Are they completely crazy in combining these two elements? Are they sane for undertanding the intersection of these two elements?
Kant defines art as “a kind of representation that is purposive in itself and, though without an end, nevertheless promotes the cultivation of the mental powers for sociable communication”
Artworks are ontologically dependent on, and inferior to, ordinary physical objects, which in turn are ontologically dependent on, and inferior to, what is most real, the non-physical Forms. Grasped perceptually, artworks present only an appearance of an appearance of what is really real. Consequently, artistic experience cannot yield knowledge. Nor do the makers of artworks work from knowledge. Because artworks engage an unstable, lower part of the soul, art should be subservient to moral realities, which, along with truth, are more metaphysically fundamental and hence more humanly important than beauty. Beauty is not, for Plato, the distinctive province of the arts, and in fact his conception of beauty is extremely wide and metaphysical: there is a Form of Beauty, of which we can have non-perceptual knowledge, but it is more closely related to the erotic than to the arts. ..
I know these parts of the article are really long.. sorry Just sparked my interest. Great thread. If you can't formally define art then it's more of a matter of opinion. Buddhists say that if you read a passage and something jumps out at you then that is truth to you. One sentence may mean the entire world to you, but can mean nothing to me. Doesn't mean either way is WRONG, it simply means that it's true to me, and what's true to you.
Although, I see your friend's point, painting's go straight from the soul and mind to the canvas. I can also see that I have been moved by photographs just as much as I have by paintings. We do get to play with light, composition, dof, pov's, angles, while a painter only gets them, a canvas and a brush.. BUT we have to know the angles, light, composition, dof, pov's and angles to capture art. So we both work hard at creating something beautiful.. or portraying something that means something to us.
Why did you shoot this
the way that you did?
With the foreground so blurry
most of the subject you hid.
My eye is drawn center
toward the hand in the light.
Did you did it on purpose
to master our sight?
If a photographer simply
records what they see,
why put so much thought
into what should not be?
An artist creates
and pushes the edge,
instead of a plank
we see a hand grip a ledge.
"What's happening here?
Is it the end of the line?
Won't somebody help him?
Will he be just fine?"
Ideas and thoughts
and irrational fear;
your camera has spoken,
we listen, we hear.
The quandry is simple,
at least in my eyes.
In the mind of each person
is where "artistry" lies.
Thanks alot @rockinrobyn for pulling me into this! ;)
This is where the lines get sketchy for me. I don't think it's about the "tools" we use (camera, paintbrush, charcoal, clay), because they all achieve their purpose. It's the subject that's in question; paint is just paint, but when you turn it into a verb you're translating one world (abstract, in your head) into another (tangible, visible). That is what makes fine art for her; she would say a movie script is fine art, but the movie is not (unless it's animated, I assume, but I haven't got into that with her). Photography only captures light, which is merely perceived by humans, not affected or created.
If that is one conclusion, then my argument would be that any medium qualifies as fine art if it's meant to capture (or results in capturing) more than just the subject. It needs to connect to purely human thinking: emotion, desire, time, culture, etc.
While I sparate art and craft, I am not making judgements on their value. Their can be art with bad craftsmanship and there can be craft with without art. But when art and craft come together you have something special.
Personally I hold Craftsmanship higher than Art, If someone has not mastered his or her Craft than their Art will not be fully realized.
Just my 2 cents!
May I please save this to my computer? It just makes me so happy inside.
"However, the feeling I got from my friend was that, because Aaron didn't create anything about that scene, he only stumbled upon in and captured it, it is not "fine" art."
Have you ever been out photographing with others? No matter how many people stand in front of the same thing, each photographer will not see the same thing. Some will not see anything and move on. The fact that someone sees something no one else does is exactly why this can't be correct. It can take but a spit second to see the value in the image and to be the only one who saw 'that'. Lots of people will say I could do that but they didn't. That is what makes this wrong.
What do you make of this? http://blogs.artinfo.com/inview/files/2011/05/pisschrist.jpg
I know this might open up a fresh controversy so I want to make it clear, I don't bring this up to discuss morals. I'm just interested in what you think: did Andres Serrano intend to connect, create, inspire, motivate, resonate, affirm...? I know people who don't consider this art at all.
Anyway, yes, I do think we agree, but I may take it a step farther and say that it's not up to the intent of the photographer/artist but the resulting affect felt by the viewer. If it expresses the artist's feeling, I call it art. If it affects my own feeling, I call it fine art.
One could argue that drawing with a pen or painting with a paintbrush is also "cheating", because you're using an instrument to convey what your mind is seeing. How is using a camera any different?
Going back to the Photographer vs the Artist. If I were to take a few portraits, some of them would look so much like a Driver's Licence Photo that you couldn't hang them in a gallery, unless you had developed a reputation of being a Great Driver's Licence Photographer, but any, and I mean any painted Portrait will be hung in a gallery.
@ pocketmouse Hmm... It's quite possible to say that when you set up a scene in order to take the photo, the photographer is "painting" out what he sees before snapping the shutter. What do you think about candids?
Oh, and then there are these kinds of people, who surpass any limitations of whatwe call "art": http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/visions-of-a-blind-photographer/
@rockinrobyn The plausible counterpart I was thinking of was the photo I linked :) It's called "Piss Christ," and for literal reasons. I don't know the intentions of the artist, but I certianly know the violent reactions it's evoked in some people.
http://www.elephantartgallery.com/
:)
For me, photography has been linked with journalism for such a long time. It has often been used to illustrate words, a story or a theory. It has been used as documentation. For a long time, professional photographers have spent their time trying to capture moments in time, people and places and document the way man has impacted on this planet. The home owners who had the funds to buy a camera, would inevitably use many of their rolls of film to capture friends and family doing their everyday thing.
In the same period of time, the art world has seen cubism, surrealism and pop art (just to name a few). Artists have always been paid to decorate, for people to stop and look at an image to hang on the wall. Sure, before cameras the job of the Painter was also to document, but at the end of the day, a painter has always had to appeal to someone else at least to get their framed piece to remain on a wall somewhere.
These painting have had to explain themselves. People didn't want to read a novel with each wall hanging.
So... in summary. My photographs don't need to be aesthetic if I know there is a story behind it. Take for example my last 4 images. The 3 Orchid photos were taken because they were pretty and I wanted to capture the beauty of these flowers... I wouldn't call it artistic but you could hang them on the wall. My today shot has a story behind it and it depicts a young lady using dirty water to undertake her daily chores. This is a pretty gritty shot. I wouldn't hang this shot on a wall, but would accept it in a journal or a newspaper, with words.