Black
Photographer.
I would be interested to read Chris Crawford's take on this debate.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Either photography is subject to completely different rules from any other fine art, or financial reward is irrelevant. By the criterion of money, Vincent Van Gogh only became a fine artist after he died.
As a native English speaker -- and English English at that, not American -- and as someone who earns his living from a facility with words and a camera -- I'd suggest that 'fine art' has three components:
1 Intent. As others have said, it is done primarily with aesthetic intent. This can of course embrace ANY form of photography, though it's less likely in (say) weddings than in still lifes (unless the still life in question is an advertising photograph...)
2 Competence. Is it possible to create a 'fine art' picture of a cute cat? Probably, but it's bloody difficult.
3 Bulldroppings. Many pictures require a modicum of explanation, perhaps as little as a caption, but I find it most amusing that bad 'fine art' photographers commonly try to justify their work with long, tendentious and tedious essays. They may be rotten photographers, but they're often even worse writers. I've just come back from Arles, and I generally found (as usual) that the more tendentious the drivel, the worse the photography.
Ultimately, though, who cares? Let others apply labels as they wish. To me, there's only good photography and bad photography.
Cheers,
R.
As a native English speaker -- and English English at that, not American -- and as someone who earns his living from a facility with words and a camera -- I'd suggest that 'fine art' has three components:
1 Intent. As others have said, it is done primarily with aesthetic intent. This can of course embrace ANY form of photography, though it's less likely in (say) weddings than in still lifes (unless the still life in question is an advertising photograph...)
2 Competence. Is it possible to create a 'fine art' picture of a cute cat? Probably, but it's bloody difficult.
3 Bulldroppings. Many pictures require a modicum of explanation, perhaps as little as a caption, but I find it most amusing that bad 'fine art' photographers commonly try to justify their work with long, tendentious and tedious essays. They may be rotten photographers, but they're often even worse writers. I've just come back from Arles, and I generally found (as usual) that the more tendentious the drivel, the worse the photography.
Ultimately, though, who cares? Let others apply labels as they wish. To me, there's only good photography and bad photography.
Cheers,
R.
daveleo
what?
IMO the phrase "fine art photography" means that the print itself (physically) is "archival museum grade". The phrase does not apply to the image itself. This phrase I think came about to help convince people that their $10,000 purchase will not fade or change colors as the years go by.
Defining "art" is futile, argumentative, an unsolvable debate. Defining "fine art" over and above that is even more so.
Defining "art" is futile, argumentative, an unsolvable debate. Defining "fine art" over and above that is even more so.
dpredie
Newbie
ironically the oft-quoted masters, capa/bresson did "fine art" in their "journalism";
so is fine art a private affairs or something to be showcased in the public space?
so is fine art a private affairs or something to be showcased in the public space?
daveleo
what?
Defining "art" is (as I said) impossible. Not that people don't keep trying to do that, it's simply not possible. (Look at the endless unresolved debates on the topic.)
But . . . the term "fine art photography", IMO, has a lot to do with the permanence of the print, and it probably was born in the marketplace to upscale the pricing of some work, to assure buyers the image won't dissolve in 5 years.
But . . . the term "fine art photography", IMO, has a lot to do with the permanence of the print, and it probably was born in the marketplace to upscale the pricing of some work, to assure buyers the image won't dissolve in 5 years.
timor
Well-known
Man ! That's all yours ? Very nice. No doubt this is one venue of fine art photography. Your selection of the quots is interesting.
astro8
Well-known
+1.........!
Jack Conrad
Well-known
Hi, I'm a Fine Art Photographer.
You can take your clothes off and put them over there while I set up my expensive photography equipment.
You can take your clothes off and put them over there while I set up my expensive photography equipment.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Hi, I'm a Fine Art Photographer.
You can take your clothes off and put them over there while I set up my expensive photography equipment.
I don't think you'd like it if I did...
Cheers,
R.
daveleo
what?
---f
-
Correct. All my work. No reblogging of others to be found here.
Nudes ----- http://www.thatjeffskin.com/
Editorial ----- http://www.thatjeff.com/
the most recent posting of the models covered in "black tar" was shot with a M8 + 50mm summilux and CV 35 Nokton. Also had my 28 Elmarit vII pre-asph and tri-x loaded into the M4. Haven't developed that film yet.
The "black tar" is actually molasses. I did test's a couple weeks back on one of the models legs with chocolate sauce and blackstrap molasses to determine which one looked more like oil in black and white. Molasses was the smoothest. Pro's and con's. Chocolate kind of stays put but isn't as smooth when poured on and looks clumpy (unless it's hot enough-but then it's not safe to pour on skin). Molasses flows amazingly well but you need to shoot quick because it's heavy and it moved down as one unit leaving a mottled pattern on the skin - interesting all on its own.
M8 + CV 35mm Nokton
All the rest of the images on http://www.thatjeffskin.com/ in black and white are mostly tri-x and acros developed in rodinal. Early on I shot lots of Delta 100 and 400 in 120 and developed in DD-X, but it was expensive. Rodinal has become my sole developer. So I just shoot Agfa APX imitator Promax 100, Tri-X in 35mm and PANF50, Acros, Tri-X in medium format. I've got some 4x5 work in there too (see image below) for that I buy really inexpensive Shanghai GP3 (about $1/sheet) and develop in rodinal. I see similarities in it to Plus-X, but that could be wishful thinking.
Hasselblad 500cm with 3.5/100mm and tri-x, stand developed in rodinal (I may have used a 10 or 21mm extension tube with this shot, but can't remember)
Shen-Hao TZ45-IIB with 5.5/270mm and Shanghai GP3, stand developed in rodinal
mdarnton
Well-known
Let's see now. . .
Thinks he's an artist+self-promotion+pretense+competence+a sense of seeing beyond the documentary level+archival materials+nice framing+gallery+sales+appreciative owners and viewers=art [Maybe I will have to keep amending this as I see more qualifications added! But we will still ultimately end up with the following:]
Therefore having fulfilled all requirements, Thomas Kinkade was an artist.
I'm sure glad THAT's settled!
Best to stock up while you can!
Thinks he's an artist+self-promotion+pretense+competence+a sense of seeing beyond the documentary level+archival materials+nice framing+gallery+sales+appreciative owners and viewers=art [Maybe I will have to keep amending this as I see more qualifications added! But we will still ultimately end up with the following:]
Therefore having fulfilled all requirements, Thomas Kinkade was an artist.
I'm sure glad THAT's settled!
Best to stock up while you can!
---f
-
Michael, I quite like some of your work, in particular this image. Very nice still life. Art really is in the eye of the beholder.
timor
Well-known
At first I thought It's a chocolate ice cream topping. Yummy.
I am just wondering, in the list of negs you are using I didn't see a Tmax. Especially in 4x5 Tmax 100 and 400 is amazing, but then it is not so compatible with Rodinal. Well, whatever works for you. And apparently, it works.
I gonna check your web site time to time for new stuff. Cheers.
mdarnton
Well-known
Thanks. Funny in this case because that was a two-minute setup to show some tools I use for grinding pigments, in a violin making forum post. So can I negate it as art by my own intent, or does the audience get to veto that intent?
So can I negate it as art by my own intent, or does the audience get to veto that intent? ---f
-
I have shot some tmax in 4x5 and 120. I developed it in D76, I think. But I'm a big fan of rodinal and prefer to stick with less choice and become familiar with my tools.
Occasionally I'll play with verichrome pan in 120 since I have a bag of it in the freezer - expired in 95. I also have some technical pan and plus-x from the 70's in the freezer. I shoot those for fun and experimental - friends and family etc...
As an example, this is the verichrome pan from '95. Stand developed in rodinal.
Hasselblad 500cm + 4/120mm makro-planar
expired verichrome pan
starless
Well-known
No. Beauty is the eye of the beholder. Art, either beautiful or not, exists as art on its own, regardless of what someone might think of it.
To say, art is in the eye of the beholders is to equate Van Gogh's work, and his years of struggling, working, learning, growing as an artist, to a 4-year-olds fingerprinting whose mom thinks it's amazing and puts in on the fridge.
daveleo
what?
actually, beauty is in the eye of the beerholder
