Quote:
Originally Posted by Bendall
Much simpler than I thought, although I would have expected the photographs to be superior quality?
|
Depends what you mean by 'superior quality'. If you mean technical quality, a picture from up to 1900 can hardly be called 'superior quality' because the equipment was relatively inferior. But you might like a copy on your living room wall. For example,
FH Evans's 'Sea of Steps' - feted around the world at the time (1903) and technically excellent
for its time - but hardly a quality photograph by today's standards...... even though many photographers would like a small copy of it on their wall. Conversely, a modern photograph, printed with the best technology available, could be truly awful and lack the fundamentals of design, emotion, composition or meaning.
I think DigiDiva's list of definitions cover most aspects. But beware of the self-important 'expert' telling you what Fine Art is. I suppose the bottom line is whether somebody comes along to offer serious money for a photograph..... after all, New York photo galleries are full of examples of pictures that they want to sell for huge amounts of money....... but most people wouldn't even want to put on their toilet walls. I enjoy photo galleries, though.... purely to see things that I might want to try for myself. Doesn't make it Fine Art, though.