Medium Format Forum
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
Fine art
- Thread starter simonpg
- Start date
J
Juba
My 2 cents on this,
A fine-art piece, can be any product of human creativity, that is aesthetically pleasing.
Cheers
André
A fine-art piece, can be any product of human creativity, that is aesthetically pleasing.
Cheers
André
simonpg
Active Member
Wayne, I enjoyed your last post here. But I wanted to add to your comment about: "How then can photography be art, since the image is not formed directly by the artist?".
I actually feel that the photographic artist does create the form just as a painter does - just in a different way. The skills you pointed out that the protographer applies to what he sees are in my view those that directly create the image formed.
When I look at some of the iconic artistic types of photographicimages I get a feeling that the photographer has directly created the image - through interpretation, "feel" and technique.
Of course he did not make originally the object itself, nor does any artist - a sculptor makes the artistic construct but not the thing that was in his mind.
I suppose I'm "splitting hairs" but, to me the image creation involves the direct construction and expression of what he is seeing and wishes to convey and like Andre points out, in such a way that pleases the observer's eye.
I actually feel that the photographic artist does create the form just as a painter does - just in a different way. The skills you pointed out that the protographer applies to what he sees are in my view those that directly create the image formed.
When I look at some of the iconic artistic types of photographicimages I get a feeling that the photographer has directly created the image - through interpretation, "feel" and technique.
Of course he did not make originally the object itself, nor does any artist - a sculptor makes the artistic construct but not the thing that was in his mind.
I suppose I'm "splitting hairs" but, to me the image creation involves the direct construction and expression of what he is seeing and wishes to convey and like Andre points out, in such a way that pleases the observer's eye.
Yes,
Any idea that the technical way a photo comes to be has any bearing on whether it can be art seems to me to be a complete misunderstanding of what matters in art.
The thing that makes something worthwhile, is not in the technique, but in the 'substance'.
First in the thing that strikes the 'artist', what moves him or her to respond and to utter his/her response. What gives him/her the urge to break out the tools and get cracking.
Then in the 'comment'/content/substance that is put into the resulting 'utterance', phrased both such that it brings across the content/substance iself best, and in the way the artist knows best how to.
The important bit is the ability of the 'utterance' to recreate in the 'recipient' (the art consumer) the feeling, etc. (the 'substance') the subject matter originally evoked in the artist.
Communication.
That is possible in whatever medium that allows conveying a sense, a feeling, a mood, sentiment, a more-or-less-rational idea even.
Photography in this respect does not differ from any other medium, does not differ from any other form of art (in fact, as such, it is better equipped to do this than another great art form, music, which cannot articulate the exact content (needs added words), and only deals with 'raw-feelings').
This is where fine art differs from non-fine art too: in the selection of what it communicates. Its only aim is to please. To bring across things that create a pleasant feeling, and avoid anything else. Its aim is to conform and to confirm. To avoid (re)creating any malaise, a sense of uneasiness, etc. To avoid to upset.
But that has been said already.
Any idea that the technical way a photo comes to be has any bearing on whether it can be art seems to me to be a complete misunderstanding of what matters in art.
The thing that makes something worthwhile, is not in the technique, but in the 'substance'.
First in the thing that strikes the 'artist', what moves him or her to respond and to utter his/her response. What gives him/her the urge to break out the tools and get cracking.
Then in the 'comment'/content/substance that is put into the resulting 'utterance', phrased both such that it brings across the content/substance iself best, and in the way the artist knows best how to.
The important bit is the ability of the 'utterance' to recreate in the 'recipient' (the art consumer) the feeling, etc. (the 'substance') the subject matter originally evoked in the artist.
Communication.
That is possible in whatever medium that allows conveying a sense, a feeling, a mood, sentiment, a more-or-less-rational idea even.
Photography in this respect does not differ from any other medium, does not differ from any other form of art (in fact, as such, it is better equipped to do this than another great art form, music, which cannot articulate the exact content (needs added words), and only deals with 'raw-feelings').
This is where fine art differs from non-fine art too: in the selection of what it communicates. Its only aim is to please. To bring across things that create a pleasant feeling, and avoid anything else. Its aim is to conform and to confirm. To avoid (re)creating any malaise, a sense of uneasiness, etc. To avoid to upset.
But that has been said already.
simonpg
Active Member
QG, while I'm with you and totally agree about "the substance"; I would not underestimate how the technique "communicates" that substance; the role it plays in enhancing the substance to get the artist's message accross and optimise the visual appeal.
Like you say the aim is to please but his technique does play a vital role in the art required to visually please.
This is what I see when I study an Ansel Adams image of a piece of wood - the beauty in the substance is so wonderfully enhanced by his technique; it creates such pleasing fealings.
Of course Adams is only one ex&le of wonderful art produced by so many.
Like you say the aim is to please but his technique does play a vital role in the art required to visually please.
This is what I see when I study an Ansel Adams image of a piece of wood - the beauty in the substance is so wonderfully enhanced by his technique; it creates such pleasing fealings.
Of course Adams is only one ex&le of wonderful art produced by so many.
Simon,
I think you misunderstand me: i do not underestimate the 'technique' at all.
A photo is a photo, made in the particular vocabulary that is photography. Completely different from, say, a symphony.
Whether the thing it puts across is something worthwhile, something worth communicating, art maybe, does not depend on what 'language' you speak.
Nor does (and that was the point) the fact that photography makes use of light being refracted by glass, it then hitting film, photons changing crystals, chemicals reacting with other chemicals, etc. all by it or themselves (the "the image is not formed directly by the artist" thing) have any bearing on what we, the 'artists' do with that all. We make use of that, just like we (well, some of us) make use of the fact that if you blow into one end a sound will come out the other end of an oboe.
Recording (the seemingly passive thing photographers do) is an act. Selecting. Selecting what to record.
And indeed how to record it. How to make (hopefully good) use of the vocabulary/technique and the possibilities it offers to "optimise the visual appeal" (though i wouldn't phrase it like that).
How skilfully this vocabulary is used to bring something across is indeed of vital importance.
I couldn't say something in Mandarin if my life depended on it, let alone say something 'beautiful', relevant, poignant.
But maybe you have noticed how we're now talking about 'craft' again?
By the way,
I did not (and never will) say that the aim of art is to please. That's the aim of 'fine art'.
The aim of art is to 'say' things that are interesting, relevant, regardless (!) of how pleasing (can be that too, yes), indifferent, or disturbing they are.
I think you misunderstand me: i do not underestimate the 'technique' at all.
A photo is a photo, made in the particular vocabulary that is photography. Completely different from, say, a symphony.
Whether the thing it puts across is something worthwhile, something worth communicating, art maybe, does not depend on what 'language' you speak.
Nor does (and that was the point) the fact that photography makes use of light being refracted by glass, it then hitting film, photons changing crystals, chemicals reacting with other chemicals, etc. all by it or themselves (the "the image is not formed directly by the artist" thing) have any bearing on what we, the 'artists' do with that all. We make use of that, just like we (well, some of us) make use of the fact that if you blow into one end a sound will come out the other end of an oboe.
Recording (the seemingly passive thing photographers do) is an act. Selecting. Selecting what to record.
And indeed how to record it. How to make (hopefully good) use of the vocabulary/technique and the possibilities it offers to "optimise the visual appeal" (though i wouldn't phrase it like that).
How skilfully this vocabulary is used to bring something across is indeed of vital importance.
I couldn't say something in Mandarin if my life depended on it, let alone say something 'beautiful', relevant, poignant.
But maybe you have noticed how we're now talking about 'craft' again?
By the way,
I did not (and never will) say that the aim of art is to please. That's the aim of 'fine art'.
The aim of art is to 'say' things that are interesting, relevant, regardless (!) of how pleasing (can be that too, yes), indifferent, or disturbing they are.
Simon: In many respects you are correct is saying that a photographer directly creates the image through “interpretation, "feel" and technique”, but in respect of the “photographic artist [creates] the form just as a painter does” – there I need to split hairs.
As you may or may not be aware, photography has generally always had the standing of being a suspect second cousin to painting and sculpture in the art world. In large part this is because most photographs are crafted indirectly, rather than directly by hand by either applying paint to a canvas or cutting away/molding material to create a form. A painting or sculpture is generally always unique, whereas a photographic image has the potential to be reproducible without end.
The concept of uniqueness is integral to the fine arts. In part that is the unspoken reason why printmaking -- etchings, woodblock prints, and stone lithographs -- does not have the same high standing as painting or sculpture. (Of course, this isn't much different from casting multiple sculptures from a mold -- some pigs are more equal than others?) And a photographic print is generally valued even less highly, since only a limited number of etchings or lithographs can be created from a plate/stone before the latter begins to deteriorate and the image quality degrades. Conversely, a photographic image is reproducible not only without end but also without little qualitative difference between the first print and the 250th, 500th, …
The point is that while aesthetics is a principle aspect of what constitutes a fine art image, it is its physical quality that defines it as an art object. In general the more unique the object is, the higher value and status it is provided -- often by default rather than by merit. And while it can be argued that a photographic negative is unique, who hangs negatives on their wall? Yes, there is the matter of daguerreotypes and tintypes, but most of those exist as historic rather than artistic artifacts -- that little matter of intent again
In simple terms, aesthetics is an ideal; the materiality of the art object is the reality. That may sound flip, but in many respects both are faces of the same coin and inseparable. No matter how far one stretches the capabilities of a medium, a medium's inherent characteristics sets limitations on how it may be manipulated as a form of expression. As such, the very materiality of the medium used to create an image is an integral quality of that image. It also follows that a concept may actually be better realized through one medium than another; that is an aesthetic decision. How well a concept is realized is, more often than not, determined by how well the medium has been controlled to convey the intent; and that is a matter of style and technical mastery. Photography is no different than painting or sculpture in those respects, and in theory has as much artistic merit and validity; but as we all know, in the real world conventions often say otherwise.
Conventions also tend to define what ‘art’ is in the photographic community. For instance, large format is often regarded as ‘the’ fine art medium in photography – particularly in respect of landscapes. But depending on the scene, a print made from a grossly enlarged 35 mm. negative may actually convey that particular scene’s essence as well or better than an 11x14 platinum print or Velvia chrome. Although any of those approaches requires a fair degree of judgment and skill to pull off well, which do you think would be held in higher regard by the general photography community? The common answer would be the large format images because not only is that the convention, but also because large format is arguably the most manual and controllable of photographic formats. Apart from the inherent qualitative differences in matters of detail and tonality, it is the ability to alter how an image in formed via selective control of a view camera’s movements that truly sets large format apart. Photographers using different formats are comparatively limited in how they may manipulate their medium as an interpretive form of expression.
The traditional art world has generally held photography to be a lesser art form not only because of its inherent documentary nature (an artist need not have an actual subject on hand to create an image), but also because photography is commonly perceived as being ‘easy’ when compared to the skill and time it takes to create a painting. All of the traditional arts, whether representational or abstract, have one thing in common: they are all processes that require direct manual craft when being created; that’s an integral aspect of their form. For those reasons, a photograph may actually need to satisfy higher aesthetic standards than a painting or drawing in order to be accepted as fine art. For instance, have you ever noticed that appearing contrived often disqualifies a photograph from being regarded as art; whereas artifice can be valid in a painting? That may not be fair, but it often is the reality – sort of an irony there, since it was the advent of photography that freed the traditional arts from being representational and becoming, in fact, fine art.
Postscript: If any of you are wondering where I came by all this, my original training is as a painter and printmaker. The issues I have presented here and elsewhere are derived from discussions I had with my colleagues as both a student and practicing artist over the years, and from my studies in art history and aesthetics. I don’t claim to be an authority, just wanted to share my thoughts on the issue at hand given my experience. And yes, I regard photography as being as equally valid an art form as painting; there truly are many instances when an image is better realized through photography – one just has to know how to control and manipulate its unique qualities to the best effect
As you may or may not be aware, photography has generally always had the standing of being a suspect second cousin to painting and sculpture in the art world. In large part this is because most photographs are crafted indirectly, rather than directly by hand by either applying paint to a canvas or cutting away/molding material to create a form. A painting or sculpture is generally always unique, whereas a photographic image has the potential to be reproducible without end.
The concept of uniqueness is integral to the fine arts. In part that is the unspoken reason why printmaking -- etchings, woodblock prints, and stone lithographs -- does not have the same high standing as painting or sculpture. (Of course, this isn't much different from casting multiple sculptures from a mold -- some pigs are more equal than others?) And a photographic print is generally valued even less highly, since only a limited number of etchings or lithographs can be created from a plate/stone before the latter begins to deteriorate and the image quality degrades. Conversely, a photographic image is reproducible not only without end but also without little qualitative difference between the first print and the 250th, 500th, …
The point is that while aesthetics is a principle aspect of what constitutes a fine art image, it is its physical quality that defines it as an art object. In general the more unique the object is, the higher value and status it is provided -- often by default rather than by merit. And while it can be argued that a photographic negative is unique, who hangs negatives on their wall? Yes, there is the matter of daguerreotypes and tintypes, but most of those exist as historic rather than artistic artifacts -- that little matter of intent again
In simple terms, aesthetics is an ideal; the materiality of the art object is the reality. That may sound flip, but in many respects both are faces of the same coin and inseparable. No matter how far one stretches the capabilities of a medium, a medium's inherent characteristics sets limitations on how it may be manipulated as a form of expression. As such, the very materiality of the medium used to create an image is an integral quality of that image. It also follows that a concept may actually be better realized through one medium than another; that is an aesthetic decision. How well a concept is realized is, more often than not, determined by how well the medium has been controlled to convey the intent; and that is a matter of style and technical mastery. Photography is no different than painting or sculpture in those respects, and in theory has as much artistic merit and validity; but as we all know, in the real world conventions often say otherwise.
Conventions also tend to define what ‘art’ is in the photographic community. For instance, large format is often regarded as ‘the’ fine art medium in photography – particularly in respect of landscapes. But depending on the scene, a print made from a grossly enlarged 35 mm. negative may actually convey that particular scene’s essence as well or better than an 11x14 platinum print or Velvia chrome. Although any of those approaches requires a fair degree of judgment and skill to pull off well, which do you think would be held in higher regard by the general photography community? The common answer would be the large format images because not only is that the convention, but also because large format is arguably the most manual and controllable of photographic formats. Apart from the inherent qualitative differences in matters of detail and tonality, it is the ability to alter how an image in formed via selective control of a view camera’s movements that truly sets large format apart. Photographers using different formats are comparatively limited in how they may manipulate their medium as an interpretive form of expression.
The traditional art world has generally held photography to be a lesser art form not only because of its inherent documentary nature (an artist need not have an actual subject on hand to create an image), but also because photography is commonly perceived as being ‘easy’ when compared to the skill and time it takes to create a painting. All of the traditional arts, whether representational or abstract, have one thing in common: they are all processes that require direct manual craft when being created; that’s an integral aspect of their form. For those reasons, a photograph may actually need to satisfy higher aesthetic standards than a painting or drawing in order to be accepted as fine art. For instance, have you ever noticed that appearing contrived often disqualifies a photograph from being regarded as art; whereas artifice can be valid in a painting? That may not be fair, but it often is the reality – sort of an irony there, since it was the advent of photography that freed the traditional arts from being representational and becoming, in fact, fine art.
Postscript: If any of you are wondering where I came by all this, my original training is as a painter and printmaker. The issues I have presented here and elsewhere are derived from discussions I had with my colleagues as both a student and practicing artist over the years, and from my studies in art history and aesthetics. I don’t claim to be an authority, just wanted to share my thoughts on the issue at hand given my experience. And yes, I regard photography as being as equally valid an art form as painting; there truly are many instances when an image is better realized through photography – one just has to know how to control and manipulate its unique qualities to the best effect