What make a photograph Fine Art

[Bendall]

Hello,

I wondered what makes a photograph fine art?

Is it a particular style, quality or type of photograph?

Is it quantifiable??

Thanks,

Simon

[DigiDiva]

Funnily enough, I wondered this myself yesterday after looking on a fine art sight and wondering what the difference was. However, I have found this....

* "Art photography": "Photography that is done as a fine art -- that is, done to express the artist's perceptions and emotions and to share them with others"[1].
* "Fine art photography": "A picture that is produced for sale or display rather than one that is produced in response to a commercial commission"[2].
* "Fine art photography": "The production of images to fulfill the creative vision of a photographer. ... Synonymous with art photography"[3].
* "Art photography": A definition "is elusive," but "when photographers refer to it, they have in mind the photographs seen in magazines such as American Photo, Popular Photography, and Print, and in salons and exhibitions. Art (or artful) photography is salable."[4].
* "Artistic photography": "A frequently used but somewhat vague term. The idea underlying it is that the producer of a given picture has aimed at something more than a merely realistic rendering of the subject, and has attempted to convey a personal impression"[5].
* "Fine art photography": Also called "decor photography," "photo decor," or "wall decor," this "involves selling large photos... that can be used as wall art"[4].

[Bendall]

Much simpler than I thought, although I would have expected the photographs to be superior quality?

[GeoffWessex]

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.

[Dunkeld]

For me, Fine Art Photography would be defined as something that might adorn a gallery wall and be generally perceived as something of an attention grabbing image. But, as Geoff Wessex indicates, there are many "so called" fine art images not fit to adorn toilet walls.

I do hate the images that show photographers have have striven too hard to be different and created rubbish in the process, and are then feted by "so called" experts for artistic interpretation. But, hey! This is just my opinion. Photography is subjective. One mans meat etc.

I have a huge portfolio of images and am in the process of enhancing many of my best colour images to produce colour/mono or sepia toned or indeed cross processed photos that give a new, improved life to any particular shot or scene. I would define these images as fine art. Not quite in the mould of Man Ray; Eugene Smith; or Ansel Evans, or indeed " The Master" Atge.. But, in my eyes these 4 photographers, to name but a few created what I call Fine Art Photographs. Images I can look at and think........... Wow!