• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

The hypocrisy of "Fine Art Photography"!

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
stick to my contention that one has to accept layers of art existing. That art starts with the export of an imagined set of feelings and esthetics into, (or onto), a new, (or existing physical form), designed to evoke a range of emotional feelings and or reflections by the visitor to it.

You're far too serious for this discussion. Let's see: how would you define art? My definition is quite simple: art is what is produced by an artist. You'll recognise it because it hangs in a museum or because the artist has silly clothes and a résumé written in gibberish. It is a definition that works for most practical purposes. What is yours?
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
You're far too serious for this discussion. Let's see: how would you define art? My definition is quite simple: art is what is produced by an artist. You'll recognise it because it hangs in a museum or because the artist has silly clothes and a résumé written in gibberish. It is a definition that works for most practical purposes. What is yours?


Jerome,

I'm a dreamer and a romantic, but also a scientist to boot! So I do at times tend to want to distill poetics to something logical.

Jerome, yours is a seriously great definition! My ideas of art, (as expressed repeatedly here) is as being nascent when the creator exports his/her ideas and feelings to a new or existing material form, so that it can be appreciated by others. When someone is moved by evoked emotions and implications of the work it begins its long and unlikely journey to acquisition by collectors or museums, just like the impossible journey of salmon swimming upstream, few actually arrive to spawn.

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
My ideas of art, (as expressed repeatedly here) is as being nascent when the creator exports his/her ideas and feelings to a new or existing material form, so that it can be appreciated by others.

Any human creation is an idea exported from someone's brain, even the bricks building your house, the screws and gears in your car or the design of your house slippers. Yet people do not consider these to be "art". Your definition does not work.

Duchamp's bottle rack certainly started as an idea in someone's brain and is appreciated by others. My neighbor in France uses exactly the same rack (they are still built today) and appreciates it very much to let his wine bottles dry after cleaning them. Yet it is not art, unless put by Duchamp in a museum.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Any human creation is an idea exported from someone's brain, even the bricks building your house, the screws and gears in your car or the design of your house slippers. Yet people do not consider these to be "art". Your definition does not work.

Jerome,

But these objects, (bricks, screws and gears and the like), are made exclusively for their utility. Unlike art, they're not created to give us an emotional experience nor as expressions of esthetics to physical form. They are not engraved with triggers to evoke emotions and feelings and then to have an individual life in our societies as an object of imagination, appreciation and experience. They are not worth revisiting over and over again for new experiences and to renew our friendships! They are just what the are bricks, screws, gears the like, that and no more, unless, of course, a Dadaist finds them, LOL!

It's that arc of artistic intent that's built into works we call art, that begin their long journey to being valued as fine Art. But first someone has to be moved beyond the utility of the thing itself. Duchamp happened to be able to export his ideas successfully on to a mass-production urinal to be appreciated apart from and despite its original humble utility.

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I'm still not convinced, Asher. Objects made exclusively for their utility was the credo of the Bauhaus school, yet their works are generally considered to be "art". Conversely, when people take pictures of their young children, they use that medium as a vessel for their emotions, yet most of these pictures would be refused by a museum and mocked by critics.

Let me broaden a bit the subject: at which point in history was the idea born that artists are people rising above the rest of humanity for their unique ability to have a "vision", emotions or whatever?

You are missing the flip side of the coin in that game: for defining art and artist, you must also define what is not art and who is not an artist. You must take a whole collection of objects which may even be of value or be nice to look at and decide that the whole lot won't be accepted. You must take a crowd of people and decide that none of them are worth of the "artist" designation that this or that single other person chosen by critics enjoys.

Because we humans have all feelings emotions and we all imagine and create things and we all embed our feelings in inanimate objects. That simply is a feature of the human species and starts when we are small children.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I found back a video that is appropriate to this discussion. We talked about Marcel Duchamp and who he was instrumental in changing the definition of art by his invention of the ready made. Here is an interview of him about the ready made. It is in French, but I don't think that understanding the language is necessary to get the message here. That man was simply incredibly clever and understood very well what he was doing. And it was never about feelings, emotional experience or esthetics. Just watch him.

http://www.ina.fr/video/CPD07011070
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I found back a video that is appropriate to this discussion. We talked about Marcel Duchamp and who he was instrumental in changing the definition of art by his invention of the ready made. Here is an interview of him about the ready made. It is in French, but I don't think that understanding the language is necessary to get the message here. That man was simply incredibly clever and understood very well what he was doing. And it was never about feelings, emotional experience or esthetics. Just watch him.

http://www.ina.fr/video/CPD07011070

Jerome,

This is interesting but still a little hard to understand fully as I have to listen several times and think about what he says. Can you explain the "retinal Effect" he refers to?

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I'm still not convinced, Asher. Objects made exclusively for their utility was the credo of the Bauhaus school, yet their works are generally considered to be "art".

Bauhaus was practical movement for using modern materials and creation techniques for architecture, printing and more. Some were indeed just utilitarian whiles others were no doubt art from the outset. Bauhaus certainly used esthetics in its approaches. Some bauhaus buildings are indeed intended as works of art. ...... but not all. Collecting examples of such works often is done to document important movements as in saving antique furniture of Louis XIV period, or ancient printing presses. They are collected as they are rare and important to the collective memories of our culture, primarily, and not for their artistic value. They are collected in museums and one can muse on them, but they are not art merely for that unique fact of inclusion.

Conversely, when people take pictures of their young children, they use that medium as a vessel for their emotions, yet most of these pictures would be refused by a museum and mocked by critics.

Not so, Jerome,

Family mementos do not infringe my concept of exporting ideas to a physical form for the purpose of creating experience in vistors and recruiting attention so as to be accepted as Art. Mementos for family reflection do of course contain emotions, but are not designed to elicit such feelings for society at large and there's no attempt or intention to bring the pictures to the public arena to compete for a place as art. So mementos, like crime pictures and insurance photographs, are not born as Art although any modern day Duchamp could dissolve previous meaning and attempt to repurpose them as such, LOL

Asher
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
I believe that once we have determined what "art" is, we should devote our collective intellect to a quest to define "fassiture".

Best regards,

Doug
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
While folks are trying to meet and engineering definition of "fassiture", let me disclose that the largest cut of the pie of spending by the wealthy is for fine art, above private aircraft. If one does express one's ideas in art and is ambitious, there's a lot of money available for your work. Is it hard to get "in" to the very top rung of "Artists", yes, but not greater then getting a position at Harvard, Yale or Princeton. One just has to be talented, labor hard and be exceptional in talent and good luck. Just recently a street artist from Los Angeles entered that select group and he's now selling each painting for a princely sum. Large photographs fit well in large homes and prestigious buildings.

There are many people, not wealthy, but comfortable, that want to beautify their walls ans so the demand for such photography has increased. That art is purchased from an Art Gallery. This and the more choice photographic works in museums are the "Fine Art" I refer to.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I ask folk to return to post # 30 which deals with the dismissal of "Fine Art" going beyond Will Thompson's opening salvo, albeit with valid complaints about use of terms like, "Fine Art" to charge more for high end papers.

My own interest here is to offer that Fine Art is a practical term that applies to a part of highly rewarding photography, considered by galleries, museums and collectors to be exceptional in their class. So "Fine Art Photography" is a really valuable and clear concept and if we visit galleries and museums in any modern city, we can will discover firsthand the range of the kind of work against which we'd need to compete.

Again, let me point out the potential rewards for the very few who might succeed in selling in this market. More discretionary wealth is spent on art than any other category. Photography, (from small classic well-known favorites to newer and much larger wall pieces), are in ever increasing demand. So while it might sound easy fun being dismissive to the term "Fine Art" as being pretentious, vague, self-designated and even false, in practical terms, what's sold as the best photographic art is indeed unusually admirable and rare often in craft, style, vision or all three. One can belong to a chuckling self-reinforcing society of Aristotelian logicians, mocking the term to dismiss "Fine Art" as hypocritical nonsense. Then one is ignoring one of the most massively voracious new markets for skilled photographers with a personal conviction of their own vision and the rare fortune to be successful.

I know more than a few here who could compete in this rare field under the right circumstances. If you can make the equivalent in a photographic print 1/10 of the power and uniqueness of Scythian Gold, then you will succeed in selling your photography in the finest of galleries. Anything in that class is Photographic Fine Art!

In short, Will Thompson is in error! The term "Fine Art Photography" is neither a misnomer nor hypocritical. Doug in being careful logical and therefore, dismissive is also mistaken on this very rare occasion.

Rather, the relevance, meaning, value and provenance of "Fine Art" is apparent only in the successful end result of a long and arduous but focussed journey. It's one started with an imagination and compelling idea. This then is photographically transformed, the real and the imagined, to a print, something physical, that has to breathe and find its place and compete. It must be appreciated by others, providing such a unique experience, that the picture compels being revisited and drawing admirers. The ultimate success in its arrival in a prestigious art gallery or museum requires nothing more than hard work, devotion, originality, persistance, talent, self-worth, community support and also good fortune. All these characteristics, even the last one, "good fortune", are within reach of photographers, potentially no different than more than a few photographers here.

My object in replying at such length, and in such stubborn seriousness, is that I believe in the talent and capabilities of a number of posters here. Yes, it's beyond most of us, but let's not be dismissive of the entire process as hypocritical just because it's hard, inexact, unfair or lacks transparency.

Of course, there's risk in investing so much effort in making photography to sell as Fine Art. The grower of corn can always sell although the price may fluctuate according to demand. This doesn't hold with art as it has no utilitarian function other than working on people's psyche. Unfortunately some of the finest photography can be ignored if fashion, taste, access and timing are not lined up with the stars!

In short, if getting into a major gallery is your goal, then if we can help add a little light in your path, we'll do it, but most of it is up to you.

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
What you write about fine art is true, Asher, but you are forgetting one important aspect: aggression, conflict, violence, social status. This is the reason why e.g. engineers and technical people profess in jest that they are not artists (while there are precious few professions that are as creative as being an engineer). Joking is a way to dispel aggression.

I don't really have the time to develop the subject know, I'll come back to it in the evening. But I already gave the key: fine art is marketed as Veblen goods. It must be kept rare to sell. The more people are excluded from the party, the rarer it is and the better it will sell.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
What you write about fine art is true, Asher, but you are forgetting one important aspect: aggression, conflict, violence, social status. This is the reason why e.g. engineers and technical people profess in jest that they are not artists (while there are precious few professions that are as creative as being an engineer). Joking is a way to dispel aggression.

Thanks Jerome for the encouragement. I was feeling alone for a while!

I don't really have the time to develop the subject know, I'll come back to it in the evening. But I already gave the key: fine art is marketed as Veblen goods. It must be kept rare to sell. The more people are excluded from the party, the rarer it is and the better it will sell.


So right about rarity. There's one fellow here who's work measures with the greats, in my opinion, but he offers his work on the internet for hundreds of dollars. No one buys, I told him, so why not jack up the price to $3,000 or more and then it's worth wall space for someone to represent you. Who could ever consider to invest wall space in you, if you give a way work and destroy your own marketability.

Now Leo Castelli was a master of keeping things rare. "Roy Lichtenstein, Jasper Johns, Frank Stella, Robert Rauschenberg, and many other seminal artists." were enriched by his promotion management and controlled exposure. You were privileged to even get access to his rostrum of artists. That's how he could demand fortunes for their work. Read the brilliant work by Annie Cohen Solal in her 2010 book on Castelli, "Leo and His Circle". The book should be available in her native French and in English. $25 would be a bargain but too many were printed, I guess and prices can be as low as under $6:00. That after all is rather ironic!

Still, there's nothing hypocritical about any of that. If something is not rare, then how much can it be worth?

Asher
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Jerome,

What you write about fine art is true, Asher, but you are forgetting one important aspect: aggression, conflict, violence, social status. This is the reason why e.g. engineers and technical people profess in jest that they are not artists (while there are precious few professions that are as creative as being an engineer). Joking is a way to dispel aggression.

Merci bcp!

Best regards,

Doug
 
While it is true that the label "Fine Art Photography" is often used as a marketing tool and may not have a clear definition in the natural world, it is also true that photography can be considered a form of art. Art is a subjective concept, and what one person considers art may not be the same as what another person considers art. Fine art photography typically refers to photographs that are created with the intention of being viewed as works of art, rather than simply as snapshots or documentary images. This can involve a range of techniques and approaches, including using special papers, inks, and printers to achieve a certain aesthetic effect. Ultimately, whether or not a photograph is considered fine art is a matter of personal interpretation and opinion.
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
All I know for certain is that in many colleges and universities there is a building with "Fine Arts" in its name.

For example, New Mexico State University - Alamogordo (a satellite of the state's second-largest public university, and the community college for our county) there is a building identified as the "Rohovec Fine Arts Building" (building code: FA).

It contains (solely) a nice 250-seat theater. The sign on the building reads "Rohovec Theater".

We can be sure of its actual name since the building's only room (the theater) is labeled "FA-101".

When the college had any arts programs, they were housed in a different building (identified as the "Technical Education Building", building code: TE). But those programs have been discontinued.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
All I know for certain is that in many colleges and universities there is a building with "Fine Arts" in its name.

For example, New Mexico State University - Alamogordo (a satellite of the state's second-largest public university, and the community college for our county) there is a building identified as the "Rohovec Fine Arts Building" (building code: FA).

It contains (solely) a nice 250-seat theater. The sign on the building reads "Rohovec Theater".

We can be sure of its actual name since the building's only room (the theater) is labeled "FA-101".

When the college had any arts programs, they were housed in a different building (identified as the "Technical Education Building", building code: TE). But those programs have been discontinued.

Best regards,

Doug
Doug,

Well my good friend, that seems to suggest some skepticism in the term “Fine Arts”. However “Fine Arts” in the context of academic curriculum organization is merely a practical system for guiding folk as to the sort of subject taught under that heading. So it woukd, of course, exclude subject taught under the head of medicine, dentistry or engineering.

But that term, “Fine Arts” has never been used to define the Art that folk create, which,(by some means), is appreciated so much, (by certain aficionados, influencers and risk-takers), that they become valued enough to be enjoyed by others. Some are even willing to put down good money to own them and display at home or at work.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Doug,

Let me add a better notion of “Art”!

It’s assumed some small subset of such artwork becomes recognized or judged as significant and worth of societies long term interest. This art is sought after, collected and displayed in museums and art galleries. This is the final selection of Art worth seeing, a sampling of the most creative or influential artists.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Finally a more nuanced approach to defining art as part of a journey towards a an uncertain goal of worthiness to society.

Some Art collections become culturally important as folk travel again and again to visit and revisit, bringing their accumulative life experiences to the Aria and individuality of each art piece on display that causes them to engage and muse as if the particular man-made interesting object had life, character and personality worth knowing and moving them.

So “Art” can be seen as a work somewhere on the journey from “The Cathedral of the Mind” of one creative person to a revered place in collections our society deems worthy of protecting at almost any expense for future generations to enjoy.

Asher
 
Top