Kirk McCann Studio wrote:
Is a fine art photo about the photographer..the subject, the epuipment?

This to me is a key ingredient in a photograph being considered fine art.  It is about the subject as much as it is about the photographer, or sometimes nothing about the subject and all about the photographer or mostly about the subect and a bit about the photographer.  In other words the creator of the image is there somewhere in the image.  There is thought and purpose behind the image beyond just what something looks like.

Kirk McCann Studio wrote:
Being a painter, I don't fully understand what makes a photo fine art.

JenniferMaria wrote:
I don't know what art is.

Art is a work which, when observed, you can not turn from without offering a critique.

This definition requires honesty from the person defining art, but it resolves some of the problems with previous definitions of art.

If you can look at something and honestly not care about it at all, it is not art.  If you look at something and you can't help but say something it is art.

This is not to say you are not allowed to critique things that aren't art...and also not to say that a bad critique means it is not art...it just means that if someone has done something in a manner that leaves you no other option than to critique it, it has been done artfully, and therefore is art.

Understanding my definition of art also requires you understand that beauty is not, as previously assumed, in the eye of the beholder...rather it is a biological and genetically encoded reality...there is a line between beauty and ugly and we all have it encoded in us from birth to figure out which is which.

Jayne Jones wrote:
...
Just like paintings, photographs start with a vision.  Vision is not something that can be measured by time in my opinion.

When I used to take pen, or brush to paper or canvas, my vision was before. When it comes to photography, it's both a fore and an afterthought. I think, for that reason alone, I didn't pursue painting and art illustration using pen and brush, or mechanical drafting and architectural design.

However, the out of control traffic congestion in the bay area makes me wish I had pursued the latter. Man, how I'd love to re-architect our freeways and highways. Specifically, all of the on and off ramps with merging traffic that makes traffic possible and a complete pain-in-the-rear!

emiliano granado wrote:

i can't disagree with you any more.  what about robert frank's work?  The Americans has notoriously bad exposure and printing.  they're grainy, sometimes out of focus, and not printed superbly.  but that book might be the most important photographic work of the century. 

there are no rules.  period.

His work is no where near as bad as the stuff I've seen being called fine art here in Phoenix, Az.  He also doesn't seem to have a single photograph in that series where he's combined every possible faux pas.  He also has strongly defined subjects in his work.  You don't have to read the caption just to have a chance to understand his images.

I've seen a series of work where sepia toned 5" x 7" prints mounted in a 16" x 20" white matte everything in the shot is out of focus, the film is underexposed, the print has been overexposed, the edges have been dodged, and only by reading the caption can you even fathom a guess as to what the artist had in mind.  But then knowing the artist, I think he was pissed because his favorite series was not going to be permitted in the library due to male nudes in a few of the images.

Then there was another photographer that tried to contrast images from different seasons.  Poor exposure, horrible lighting, again out of focus using a fisheye lens made me wonder if the selection committee looked at the work with an attitude of I'm not going to be the one that admits "I don't get it!"  They seem to equate poor quality photography with art.  Proper exposure seems to be frowned upon, as does having clear images and good use of lighting.

I have no problem with images that break rules, if the image is strong enough.  But, when I see crap, I won't try to describe it as being art.  If an image on the wall requires a caption in order to understand what the artist is trying to convey, the image has failed.

Kirk McCann Studio wrote:
I spend weeks doing a painting but a photo takes mere moments to create.

What?  WHAT?

You're confusing creation with execution.  It takes just as much time to create a photograph as it does to create a painting.  The "creation" is the development of the concept in the mind.  Whether you put in on paper wih a brush or a camera is just a matter of he execution.

If you're referring to value, then it's true that you need rarity relative to demand to have much value.  Painters commonly paint the same picture more than once and photographers print the same picture more than once.  But, the photographer can create a limited number of his works just as a painter can.

Painter, photographer.  Same thing.  Different tools.

-Dave

Habenero Photography wrote:

His work is no where near as bad as the stuff I've seen being called fine art here in Phoenix, Az.  He also doesn't seem to have a single photograph in that series where he's combined every possible faux pas.  He also has strongly defined subjects in his work.  You don't have to read the caption just to have a chance to understand his images.

I've seen a series of work where sepia toned 5" x 7" prints mounted in a 16" x 20" white matte everything in the shot is out of focus, the film is underexposed, the print has been overexposed, the edges have been dodged, and only by reading the caption can you even fathom a guess as to what the artist had in mind.  But then knowing the artist, I think he was pissed because his favorite series was not going to be permitted in the library due to male nudes in a few of the images.

Then there was another photographer that tried to contrast images from different seasons.  Poor exposure, horrible lighting, again out of focus using a fisheye lens made me wonder if the selection committee looked at the work with an attitude of I'm not going to be the one that admits "I don't get it!"  They seem to equate poor quality photography with art.  Proper exposure seems to be frowned upon, as does having clear images and good use of lighting.

I have no problem with images that break rules, if the image is strong enough.  But, when I see crap, I won't try to describe it as being art.  If an image on the wall requires a caption in order to understand what the artist is trying to convey, the image has failed.

maybe the "art" aspect of those photographs was to repulse the viewer.  to walk away so disgusted in the art world.  and question the very nature of what is art. ha ha.  i doubt it, but possible. 

i feel you though.  there are definitely a lot of hacks in the pseudo-art world.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Since "art is the opposite of porn," .

mjr.

Art is the opposite of porn!!!!  WTF!!  Man I got in the game for the sex!!!!!  Damn - I guess I'll have to go back to ceramics!!!

Kirk McCann Studio wrote:
...but my camera sucks!!

Nah. Given enough quality time alone, you two will make beautiful pieces together. Just ask any legendary musician who was given a musical instrument and no lessons. If the mind, heart and determination, read: passion, is in it, eventually, player takes to instrument like a fish in water.

James Jackson wrote:
If you can look at something and honestly not care about it at all, it is not art.  If you look at something and you can't help but say something it is art.

Hold up here.... but that is a critique in and of itself.  If a work can be so terrible or so uninspirational that you look, walk past, and can say I don't care about it, are you not critiquing [sic] that work based purely on the idea that you have no idea? 

I have to say that I think Marcus has hit the nail on the head several times with his statements regarding art.  And I can only add that Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder (or as one of my family members once quoted "One man's junk is another man's treasure"). Although to one person Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans, Pollacks' endless splatters of paint, Matisse's paper cutouts or even Duchamp's Urinal (or the Bicycle Wheel on Stool) may seem to be nothing more than whimsies created for the sheer enjoyment of the insane artist.... another might see that and think it entirely different.  What makes art?  Is it the process (ie: Pollack and his repetitious use of paint splatters)?  Is it the meaning (Duchamp flying in the face of art and using a standard urinal to debase the art world as the public knew it)? Or is it the artistic technique (Manet and the beginning of Impressionism)?  Maybe it is only one thing but maybe it is the sum of the whole. 

But I think what it comes to is coming together as a group and collectively saying that it could be art but what is it to you?  Personally I think that if it illicits any sort of response (whether sheer delight and joy or callous discomfort) than you've encountered art of some kind.  Mondrian may not look like art to you but he did something which a) you remember and b) crosses your mind as something to be thinking about.

As for porn..... Well that is a whole different story (and I think only lighting is part of the battle!)

Kirk McCann Studio wrote:
My original assertation that a photo only takes a moment to create probably wasn't very well thought out.  Still, a painting(of some styles) can take several times over the time to create (or execute)than a photo.  That's not to diminish to amount of forethought, planning, execution, post-production, etc., that goes into a photograph.  Da Vinci worked on the Mona Lisa for 4 years.  I doubt any photo, no matter how rare or perfect, can be worth the fortunes of paintings in say, the Louve.

The problem with the above statement is that you are comparing works that have had considerable time to mature against a process that hasn't been around as long.  Considering that works in the Louvre tend not to be modern in nature (I believe most of those have been relegated to the D'Orsay, the Guggenheim, and various other more modern art museums the world over) comparing any photograph to something 4 times as old (the Mona Lisa) isn't a fair comparison.  Monetary value alone can not be the sole basis upon which art is founded and that includes any painting, sculpture, installation, etc, especially when it concerns any one of the artists considered "The Masters". 

Give a photograph 300 years to gain a provenance, demand, and rareness before comparing it to a painting hanging in the Louvre, the Met, or the Vatican.

Brandon Smith wrote:
Hold up here.... but that is a critique in and of itself.  If a work can be so terrible or so uninspirational that you look, walk past, and can say I don't care about it, are you not critiquing [sic] that work based purely on the idea that you have no idea?

No...  I'm talking about when you walk by an image and really don't notice it at all...

Advertising would be the main area that I'd say you'd find photography that isn't art...

Snapshots are the other area...

These two both meet my criteria of being an image that wouldn't be critiqued, but also wouldn't be something you don't care about...the purpose of the image is just different (usually) In the case of a snapshot, you are more interested in the subject than the artistry of the photo.  In the case of the ad, you're more interested in the product than the composition etc...

There are of course exceptions, but that allows for what I have heard called "accidental art" where someone captures an image artistically but without intending to.

Brandon Smith wrote:
And I can only add that Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder (or as one of my family members once quoted "One man's junk is another man's treasure").

Nope...beauty is in the brain/genes of the beholder...in fact it's the same beauty for everyone...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/h … cation=rss

Brandon Smith wrote:
Although to one person Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans, Pollacks' endless splatters of paint, Matisse's paper cutouts or even Duchamp's Urinal (or the Bicycle Wheel on Stool) may seem to be nothing more than whimsies created for the sheer enjoyment of the insane artist.... another might see that and think it entirely different.

These things too are covered in my definition of art.  A urinal in a bathroom isn't art...you don't even notice it.  A urinal hung on a wall in an art gallery...how can you walk away from it without at least saying "Well *I* could have done that!"...you can walk away from it, and you may despise it, but you've noticed it and you've been forced to critique it even if only internally.

Brandon Smith wrote:
What makes art?  Is it the process (ie: Pollack and his repetitious use of paint splatters)?  Is it the meaning (Duchamp flying in the face of art and using a standard urinal to debase the art world as the public knew it)? Or is it the artistic technique (Manet and the beginning of Impressionism)?  Maybe it is only one thing but maybe it is the sum of the whole.

Art is in it's ability to be critiqued.  If you go based on the process or the meaning or the technique...or even the sum of the whole, you leave out many pieces that are excellent works of art, but didn't become art through traditional means.

Brandon Smith wrote:
But I think what it comes to is coming together as a group and collectively saying that it could be art but what is it to you?  Personally I think that if it illicits any sort of response (whether sheer delight and joy or callous discomfort) than you've encountered art of some kind.  Mondrian may not look like art to you but he did something which a) you remember and b) crosses your mind as something to be thinking about.

In essence you're agreeing with me here, but I have to say that you have to limit it a bit more...an ad may make you respond to it by purchasing the product, but it may not be an artistic ad...  The determining factor is if you bought the product because you noticed the product or if you responded to the ad for the imagery of the ad itself...and thus...critiqued the image

Kirk McCann Studio wrote:
When is a photograph fine art?

When an art collector pays a photographer a shitload of money for a photo hanging in a gallery, the buyer purchases the rights to call it anything they want...

Eric Muss-Barnes wrote:

When an art collector pays a photographer a shitload of money for a photo hanging in a gallery, the buyer purchases the rights to call it anything they want...

LMAO...

Eric Muss-Barnes wrote:
When an art collector pays a photographer a shitload of money for a photo hanging in a gallery, the buyer purchases the rights to call it anything they want...

I suppose that could be an instance, also.

Kirk McCann Studio wrote:
And by the way, Bob Ross rocks!

Glad you think so....everyone calls this my BOB ROSS photograph...I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing...

Brian Diaz wrote:
Don't paintings in galleries generally sell for more than photographic prints?  (Assuming the artists are of comparable statures?)

YES.