What’s on your mind?
I’ve been thinking about ‘fine art.’
You’ve got to be kidding. I mean there are PhDs that study this sort of thing, masters of the arts that won’t touch the topic. What makes you think you can think about ‘fine art?’
I don’t know. I just wonder about it. I’m trying to be an artist and I wonder what it all means, if I’m truly an artist or if I’m getting any closer.
Ok, you’re a photographer, aren’t you? So you must be thinking about fine art photography. You must be nuts! Nobody agrees on what fine art photography is.
Yea, fine art photography, that’s it. What do you think? Do you have any ideas of what it really is? I mean I’ve heard people say that if you want your photography to be art all you have to do is to call it art and it is so. ‘My photographs are fine art.’ Lord knows you hear that enough. But that seems a bit too simplistic, a bit too easy. It seems like it should be more than that. I mean, can you snap a picture, run down to Costco to get a large print and call it art?
Let’s explore that idea a bit. The casual photographer, the snap shooter, who does just that, scores a great sunset on a beach in Hawaii. I mean, it’s really great. Is that art?
That just doesn’t seem right. What makes it so great?
Well, let’s say the colors are intense and palm trees are nicely silhouetted. And when you look at it you feel impressed. And maybe it’s so good you even say ‘Wow!’ Why wouldn’t that be art?
I don’t know. I guess if the colors were intense the exposure must have been pretty much right on. Otherwise they would have been washed out. But is having great color or a spot-on exposure enough to call a photograph ‘fine art?’ Was it intentional or just luck? Could the photographer do it again? And again? And again?
You seem to be suggesting that for a photograph to be art the photographer has to have a certain level of skill, that an impressive photograph requires more than luck. I’ll buy that. So would you say a postcard is art? I think you’d have to agree that there is actually a good amount of skill that goes into a postcard photograph.
I guess I would…, have to agree. The colors are sure there, maybe a bit overdone for my taste. They are in focus and the composition usually follows some pretty standard rules but is solid. But I don’t think anyone considers a postcard to be fine art.
Why not? The technique is sure there. So what is it lacking? Why do people buy postcards?
I guess because they want to preserve the memories of their trip, their vacation.
So they buy up postcards of places they like, bring them home to put in a scrapbook or shoe box so they can pull them out sometime in the future and relive the memories. Sounds decent enough and I agree, it’s not art. What about the photographs you see in advertisements? You talk about skill. Commercial photographers are way beyond the postcard. These photographs are powerful. They make you want to buy the car or the dress or whatever. These photographs really resonate with people way beyond the memories level. They are persuasive. They say something about the product.
Yea, I never thought of it that way but you’re right. Commercial photographers are more than technical masters of lighting, composition, exposure and focus. They can get into our minds and communicate things that we may not even be aware of; they stir emotions that make us want to buy the product.
So what you’re saying is that the photographs in ads are skillfully created and produce an emotional impact; they communicate. It seems like art does the same, doesn’t it? I mean, if you look at art hanging in a gallery or museum they are definitely skillfully created, sometimes to the point where we are stunned and in awe, and they communicate an emotional punch. So is the ad photograph art?
It still doesn’t feel right to call this kind of photography art. Would you want a photograph of a juicy hamburger hanging on your wall?
Not at all [chuckle]. I couldn’t live with that without putting on 50 pounds. Every time I looked at it I’d get hungry and have to make an In ‘N Out burger run (a double double with large fries please). No, that wouldn’t work at all. The purpose of the ad photograph is to present a product in such a way that its best features are emphasized and the company will sell more of it, not to hang on your wall. But there is no doubt that the photography is stunning and requires a high degree of skill to produce. So then, what about photojournalism?
What about photojournalism? Do you mean is it art?
Yes. Is photojournalism art?
Well, there’s no doubt that great photojournalists have a phenomenal amount of skill, that their best works are powerful and moving. And you might even see the very best of them in galleries and museums. But they can cast a naked light on reality and show us things that can’t be denied, can’t be avoided and are possibly very disturbing.
So you’re saying that art can’t be disturbing?
No, not at all. I’m saying I wouldn’t want to live with some of them hanging on my wall. But then there are a lot of images that are generally recognized as art that I wouldn’t want hanging on my wall either. It would seem, however, there is a common thread running through commercial photography and photojournalism.
And what might that be?
They both serve the purpose of very effectively documenting something. In the case of commercial photography they document the qualities of the product. Photojournalism documents historic moments and provides a visual illustration of the news story which it accompanies.
You may have hit on something there – the notion of documentation. And if you think about it, that thread also runs through the postcard and the snapshot.
Ah yes, it certainly does. So try this one on. What about the portrait photographer? Is a portrait documentation? And can a portrait be art? There was definitely a time when the great painters of the day made their living from painting portraits of nobles and gentlemen and ladies.
It’s interesting you should bring up portraiture. Certainly in a very real sense it is documentation. But in another very real sense to be a successful portrait photographer the portrait must also be flattering. And the really great portrait photographers are geniuses at sensing the essence of their subject and capturing that in the photograph. So I wouldn’t call it strict documentation because there seems to be a lot of poetic license in portrait photography. Sure, it’s the likeness of the person but great portraiture also captures the inner quality of the person.
That seems to be a dimension beyond documentation then. Documentation is factual, regardless of whether it also conveys powerful emotions or not. Portraiture is usually flattering which may not be quite so factual. Now there are a ton of portrait photographers who have a standard set of backgrounds, props and poses that people seem to like. I would hardly call that art. But when a photographer is able to reveal the soul of the subject, that’s got to be art or pretty darn close to it.
Well, you just hit on another thing that is a quality of art – creativity. Wouldn’t you say that art exhibits varying degrees of creativity?
Yea, but what is creativity? I know photographers who won’t photograph the cliché shot because ‘it’s been done before a million times.’ And I know other photographers who embrace the cliché shots and try to make it their own. So is creativity doing something that’s never been done before or doing the commonplace in a new and interesting way?
You’re point is well taken and I’d agree that art and creativity go hand in hand. But isn’t creativity a thread through many of the types of photography we’ve been discussing, especially commercial, photojournalistic and portraiture? So let’s just cut to the chase. What is it about Ansel Adams that sets him apart from all of the above?
I think you’ve gotten to the heart of it there. Adams certainly had consummate skill and he was incredibly creative. But if you’ve read his writings he would be the first to tell you that the photographs he was making were anything but documentation. He was keenly aware of how he was personally responding to the scene before him and extremely adept at bringing to bear all of his enormous skill and creativity to communicate his feeling through his photographs.
It sounds like you’re talking about inspiration and interpretation. This seems to be the quality that distinguishes art from all the other forms of photography. And it is the artist’s response to the subject and perhaps a new, possibly even profound insight into the subject that most if not all of us have missed, that sets art apart. That and the ability to communicate that response and insight to the rest of us through their work. Art is interpretation, not documentation.
You hit it on the head my friend. I often ask myself, ‘When one experiences a work of art, does the work say more about the subject or the artist?’
Both.
Right on!
Join the conversation. Share your thoughts on what is fine art. Leave a comment.
If you like this post please share it. You can Like it on Facebook, email it to a friend, share it on Twitter or LinkedIn. You can use the link at the top.
We do photography workshops. Come on out and join us. Click here to check us out.\
You can also check out our photography. Click here.
(1128)
