The question I want to ask is: what is 'fine art photography', as the term is used on this site?

Fine art as it's used in relation to photography in these pages often (by no means always) seems to be used to describe materials (Fine Art Paper, for example); to describe what photographs aren't (documentation and journalism, for example); to describe an intent to 'express' or visualize feelings, emotions and so on; and to explore and reproduce the 'beautiful'.

To my understanding, fine art is a term that applies to an incredible variety of things, and defining it is certainly beyond me. But it's clear that the term 'fine art' DOES (more usually) include photographs done on 'non-Fine Art Paper,' it can include documentary photography, it need not express or visualize feelings and so on, and it certainly need not explore or reproduce the beautiful. In fact, such notions are often quite the antithesis of contemporary fine art.

So: if I'm right in suggesting that none of the criteria for 'fine art photography' often forwarded in these pages necessarily (or even remotely) justifies use of the term 'fine art', how might we extend the criteria and thus agree on an answer to the question: what is fine art photography?

Or: is it just better not to make the claim at all, and accept that the category 'fine art' is entirely context-specific, so the same photo can have a different status depending on where it appears - a fridge, a newspaper or a gallery?

Think I'll stop there...

Hi Chris

I investigated this term myself for an article I wrote for a magazine:

http://www.nickrains.com/article11.html

"The term 'fine' does not in any way reflect the quality of the work, which is of course highly subjective. It comes from Aristotle's concept of Final Cause i.e. the purpose or end point of the work. In Latin, Fine means 'end' (In fine – at the end), and so in Fine Art the work is an end in itself, its very existence is its purpose."

It's an interesting concept, and one like the 'limited edition' concept that has been hijacked from its original meaning in the interests of sales and marketing.

Right, Nick - I guess we can learn a lot from the history of the term. 'Fine' as an end in itself certainly works in relation to some forms of contemporary fine art, too.

But it's also clear that much of fine art is by no means an end in itself - a lot of important art today seeks to change the way we see things, and to change things. No doubt such forms of photography as journalism, documentation, and advertising can work to do this. But do you think fine art photography should not have ends beyond itself? It seems to me it can, and sometimes should.

Why not?

"Fine Art" is really now used as a sales tool - it means "I want to be considered a serious artist". Of course merely claiming this is not enough - just look at the vast array of flaky websites selling (or not) 'Fine Art' photos. I personally make no claims to produce "Fine Art", like "Giclee", I'm not comfortable with such a contrived phrase.

In my jaded opinion many people using the term so stridently are aspirational photographers - those that have achieved full art status don't really need to. Having said that, there are those who do use the phrase ligitimately. Alain Briot has lots to say on this subject and he uses the term on his website.

Should Fine Art Photography have ends beyond itself? Yes, if it chooses to, no if it doesn't - it's up to the 'artist' to decide this.

Hi Nick,

Thank you for the kind words :-)

I agree that the term fine art is overused, but then limited editions are also over used. Currently I only offer my portfolios in limited editions. On request, and for certain images, I will date the print. That seems more genuine to me than placing a number out of a huge edition, such as 25/2000, which is eventually meaningless since there are so many prints, even though each of them has a unique number. Ansel Adams did not number his prints either, unless I am mistaken.

For me a fine art photograph is one that is done with the goal of creating a work of art. It is an image that is done with a high level of craftmanship and care. It has to be mounted and matted to museum standards, in an archival manner.

Above all the cost should take a second seat to the concern for quality. Fine art is about quality, not about quantity. It is not about trying to save money by buying lower-priced inks, paper, matboard and other supplies. It is about creating the finest piece you can create, regardless of cost.

The goal is an artistic rendering of a subject in the finest manner possible.

Regardless of price and cost, a fine art print should sing. It should have a lyrical quality. It should transport you to a different place. It should open a window on another world, the world the artist is inviting the audience into.

it should demonstrate an above-average printing skills. Ideally, it should demonstrate outstanding printing skills.

A full definition of fine art photography is challenging. it's a little like defining what is a luxury home, or a luxury car. Some brands and features come to mind, but how do you rate a new brand, a new product?

In photography we all know that specific photographer's work can be safely considered fine art: Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Joel Meyerowitz, all produced fine art work. But how about a new photographer whose work hasn't been "stamped" with the fine art label by his or her peers? More difficult to say. I hope the above list, however partial, does help.

Yep, that pretty much sums up my own thoughts too.

Regarding the "stamping by one's peers"; that's an interesting point - I have a forming suspicion that being hailed as an artist is more progressive than calling oneself an artist. Anyone can proclaim themselves an artist, but to be acclaimed by others is not something that can be acheived easily.It usually involves being young and very very hip in NY, sticking around long enough, or, better still, dead!

Of course it can be argued that this is missing the point of art but it's an interesting concept nevertheless...

I think being "stamped" by someone else, who has authority to do so, is a good thing.

However, personally I have no problem with anyone calling themselves artists. Being an artist is not indicative of a specific level of quality. It is only indicative of a specific intent.

Whether that intent is realized or not is for the audience to decide.

Yes, I like that - very succinct.

Very broadly speaking, being an artist seems to be simply about intent to create art. Being considered an artist by others (authorised or not), and whether the claim of art is made or not, is just another path. The two are not mutually exclusive, you can be one, or the other, or both. Both is obviously desirable but not essential

Personally I do not claim to be an artist or to create art - I am a photographer who makes attractive images for people to enjoy. However, I have been called an artist by others, a title which does not sit entirely comfortably with me since my intent was never 'art' in the first place. But I politely thank them anyway for their appreciation of my images!

I think I agree with the idea that anyone can call themselves an artist - it's then up to others to decide if their art is at all important, and thus if they are an important artist. I also think that fine art photos would normally be made with the intention of making a fine art work. But I'm still less than clear what constitutes such an art work. Alain raises other criteria that I'm not sure about/ don't agree with:

You write of 'a high level of craftmanship and care' as an important characteristic of a fine art photograph. In the broader world of fine art, craftsmanship and care in the making of the work may be important, or it may not. Since the early 1900s, much important art - much of it the stuff that fills our art history books - jettisoned the need for craftsmanship, and much contemporary fine art does the same. Indeed, the leading fine art journals often include works that are very much 'throwaway', snapshot images that, because of the concepts that underlie them, are important fine art. This contradicts the assertion that fine art photography 'should demonstrate an above-average printing skills. Ideally, it should demonstrate outstanding printing skills.' I'm not saying it shouldn't, just that it needn't.

You're right that cost is not an issue in the production of a fine art work, but there seems to be an implication that it's going to cost a lot to achieve the 'fine' outcomes you describe. Again, the history of fine art challenges the notion that only the 'finest' (and presumably expensive) materials should be used - use of cheap materials and waste has been common since the first decades of the 20th century in fine art. It could be important to a fine art photograph precisely that it is printed on cheap photocopy paper in a cheap printer.

I think the danger is that 'fine art photography' defined on such terms is akin to fine art painting as it was defined in the academies of the 19th century, from which many important artists seceded precisely because of their opposition to such academicism. Just to be clear - I'm not saying that what you describe cannot constitute an important part of fine art photography - just that it's a very particular position that ought not to exclude the breadth of the concept 'fine art' as it exists in the broader art world.

OR - is there something particular about photography that allows it to insist, when it becomes 'fine art', on precisely the 'skill' and 'quality' that Alain describes, and thus allows it to resist the traditions that I've mentioned?

I will contribute that this book may help this discussion:

http://www.lenswork.com/lgc.htm

Just had a quick read of the first two chapters - great stuff! Does it carry on in that vein?

If you are referring to my post, yes, it does, and it gets better and at this point in my artistic career I feel this book is like a bible to me. His other to books are not the same, unfortunately. I read this one continually. Be well.

If there is a special case for photography to resist the traditions I mentioned when we define the term 'fine art photography', it hasn't been established in this thread.

So:

I would say that photography as it exists in the world of fine art is free to be as diverse in its form and content as any other form of fine art;

and it seems that 'fine art photography' as it's often applied on this site (see my earlier posts in this thread for what I think this consists of) may describe a combination of 'fine art' / expensive papers, a high standard of technical skill, a quite romantic understanding of how art can operate, and a claim to 'quality' that separates it from advertising/ documentary photography, but which none the less underpins the monetary value of the works described as 'fine art photography'.

The second form of photography has its importance, but I'm not convinced it's fine art at all, except in that it might form a very small (and probably critically unimportant) sub-category of the first form of photography.

You´re allowing yourself to slip onto very dangerous ground, jecxz, because taking another´s say-so as any form of personal bible is not safe practice; it isn´t even particularly productive to you, the reader/follower either, because it can cloud the view from your own mind´s eye.

Look, let me try to explain this a bit: I have always liked H-CB, Jean Loup Sieff, Frank Horvat, Sarah Moon, Hans Feurer (very much), Sam Haskins, David Hamilton to finger but a few. Yet, none has, to my knowledge, ever dictated a path, promised a golden future or peddled a dream I might buy. What all of these people have done for me, however, has been to serve as examples that there is indeed something great out there that somebody with camera, models and talent can achieve. I did not adopt their styles for myself though every one of them has touched my own thinking at one level or another and that, I think, is as far as one should allow influence to go. Quite apart from the obvious fact that to mimic well requires almost the same talent!

Added to that, I have a sneaky suspicion that the moment one of those people was to try to mimic his/her own style, it would all go ass over elbow. It comes naturally or not at all; being self-conscious would probably be the kiss of death!

I found Feurer´s new agent just by chance the other day, and for once, it was possible to read something about the man to which he had contributed himself. Turns out he was originally an art director in London in the early 60s then, later, after spending a couple of years using up all his money fishing in Africa, he returned to London and decided to be a fashion photographer. Just like that, as Tommy Cooper used to say. (So, I wonder what the atmosphere was like in the Seychelles when he as photographer and Derek Forsyth as art director were making the ´74 Pirelli Calendar in Mahé!)

However that might have been, it sure does add muscle to my theory about the Golden Age of photography (commercial) having been and gone.

Rob C

Chris

Yes, you are right, no new definition has arisen from the swamp. I think that the reason this might be so is that the particular title of art photography/photographer is basically meaningless, so how do you ascribe meaning?

I don´t subscribe to the notion some have that art photography implies some distance from commerce: in my mind, much of what might be included in that genre is nothing if not commercially produced or, at least, produced with the hope of it being commercial enough to move off the wall! I feel that the term is indeed just a little bit of decoration meant to add gravitas to whatever form of image to which it is applied. Having said that, the term has achieved a certain validity because mostly one understands what is meant by it. And what is meant by it is something with added value, something which takes it one remove from the mundane. It might not really do so, of course, but once applied, the name creates a conception in the reader´s/viewer´s mind that might not have been there without the title. Naturally, it must have originated from a dealer´s lips...

You see the same trick when something is classified as nude or figure and why it´s not just termed naked. I was about to make the comparison using the word glamour, but it has been stolen from the vocabulary just as has the word gay: neither new meaning has any relevance to the original, at least in my lifetime, so let´s leave out Shakespeare and Chaucer from the equation, okay, guys?

In the case of glamour I think of Lauren Bacall, Rita Hayworth; today it means Pamela Anderson, about as far apart as one could get. (The two groups of women, I mean.) I doubt that glamour in the old sense exists at all in current experience; PS´d celebrities of the moment don´t fit the bill either. Glamour was never just pretty, neither did it really mean beauty though they were not mutually exclusive. I doubt that it even had anything much to do with sex appeal; more, it was a matter of the glamorous one being somehow beyond reach of mere mortals, even if the reality just meant some went to the highest bidder, much as today, one might say.

Possibly a far cry from qualifying art photography, but as everything else around us is slipping under the surface anyway, I suppose one term is probably just as good as another.

Ciao - Rob C

Hi.

This is a real can of worms and I too have certainly seen reasonably OK "record" shot photographs being sold as fine art, or web sites where the work is sent off to a Lab and then onto the buyer without ever being seen by the "artist." I have even seen mass produced poorly produced pictures branded as "fine art style." .......

However I think that the world is full of dubious marketing complications like this, take "green, organic, environmentally friendly as other overused and diluted words. Green Cars - "You really mean less brown!!!!" "Organic - we only use chemicals when necessary!!" And what really is a "sports car?"

As creators of work, work that we may wish to share, market and sell, we will have to provide descriptions and these applications and I guess that these at times be a bit on the "hopeful side" from some people. I think it very unlikely that there will ever be a universal standard detailing the requirements for fine art photography, although it would be possible for an arts organization to provide a standard and provide certification to certain artist based on there adherence to a set standard. Again this is unlikely, although a local arts council to myself does certainly have a set of requirements that work must adhere too in order to provide some kind of attraction to potential purchaser, especially new collectors who may not fully understand all the con's.

In most fields where people collect things, then there is some responsibility for the consumer to make decisions about there purchase beyond the "marketing description." There are so many wonderful photographs available for sale in this world that if someone buys a pile of rubbish after visual inspection or over the web without being satisfied with credentials of the seller then I have limited sympathy.

I'm actually more concerned over the miss use of words such as "archival" which actually do have significant implications to the future enjoyment of work and the miss use of the term is actually seriously fraudulent.

Steven

I use it, for lack of something better, to indicate that I intend my photographs to be taken seriously as Art, as opposed to being just a pretty picture or documentation of something or someone. I don't know that the materials matter so much. Of course the lines are not sharply drawn, as I would consider much of Henri Cartier Bresson's work to be both documentation and "fine art."

rmj@violetcrownphotographs.com

Nick, I find your article insightful and genuine. And I concur with your view that "Fine Art" is now a (mis/over) used sales tool. When I look at some self proclaimed "Fine Art" photos, I often have the same reaction as when I eat an "all beef" hot dog.

Most current buyers of photos in the range of $$ to $$$ are probably treating them as decorative pieces, but not as collections that may have future values of $$$$ to $$$$$. But many sellers seem to hope/hallucinate that by simply calling their $$ to $$$ work as "Fine Art" would elevate their status.

Instead of debating whether AA's or HCB's work qualifies as "Fine Art", let us at least agree that neither of them ever proclaimed their work as such. At least not to my knowledge. Nor did/do numerous other photographers in the same class. While they may consider themselves to be artists creating art, they also seem to understand that art is ultimately in the eyes of the beholders, and wisely leave the decision up to them.

To this I would like to add my subjective and often controversial view on limited editons of digital prints. The term "limited editions" is more meaningful when applied to traditional prints than to digital prints.

It takes time, effort and skill to create the first print, whether it is traditional or digital. After creating a traditional first print, it takes someone who knows how it is created (chemicals, filtering, toning, dodging and burning, etc.) to be able to repeat the process in order to duplicate *similar* copies. The process takes a non-trivial amount of knowledge, skill and effort, and hence is difficult to mass produce. Limited editions of such traditional prints are therefore indeed limited, and have an inherent value because they are difficult to duplicate.

Not so with digital prints. After the first digital print is created, it only takes a non-skilled person a few mouse clicks to duplicate an *identical* print in seconds. Limited editions of digital prints therefore do not carry the same value as limited editions of traditional prints. In fact, I find it rather silly.

The assumptions to the above comments is that each duplicator has access to the negative or digital file, and the knowledge of the media used for the first prints.

Which leads to how I value my digital prints vs my digital files. While I price my digital prints on the low side and often give them away, I take every measure to protect my digital files.

Chris, the problem with thinking your wet prints more valuable than your digital ones is that it still manages to reduce the concept of image to a question of time and materials.

I spent a hell of a lot of time in an industrial darkroom before I went solo and one of the chores was producing multiple prints off one negative, hand-developed, in deep dishes and getting them through fixer and wash onto the next bottle-neck: the rotary glazer. (Remember those beautiful Kodak machines?) We had the skills to push 10x8 prints through the process thirty or sometimes more at a time, and I bet you would NOT have know the difference between the first in and the last! I appreciate that 10x8 is not a normal art-print size, but even so, larger prints can be made to match pretty damn well, and it is largely academic anyway, as you seldom have two such things being on sale side-by-side.

So, I can´t accept that digital convenience equates with any lowering of artistic integrity or merit.

Ciao - Rob C

Having had further thoughts on the thorny issue of photography being or not being an art, perhaps the truth lies in the fact that it is many things (photography) which are different if not actually in conflict with one another.

I imagine that when used to make decorative pieces of whatever type - the operative sense being decoration - then it can be classified as another of the decorative arts such as painting or drawing, for example; when use in industry or research, possibly the same thing in many cases, then it might be thought of as a branch of science and in the case of news photography, either as propaganda or information, always difficult to tell apart.

So I guess it can be all things to all men.

Rob C

Photography is art if the photograph is taken by an artist. Let's worry about what makes some person an artist since no medium is intrinsically 'art'.

Nick

That would be a good, if simplistic definition except for one thing: I have a friend who is a successful artist (prizes from various bodies at art school; further awards from the commercial world) who both paints and photographs, the latter not just as aide memoires for his paintings but as final works in themselves. I asked him his definition on the subject some time ago, and he replied that he considered some of his output - in both genres - art and some not; it depended on how he felt it had worked out.

So there you are, even a professional artist has no clear-cut way of defining the word other than by personal opinion of what seemed to have ticked the box or not!

Rob C

At the moment, fine art photography seems to exist only in the form of a print. It seems to me that among the many conditions and considerations thus far discussed as to what constitutes "fine art" we have missed the exchange of money. Can it be said to be art (fine or otherwise) until it is purchased?

A second question: Is a print the ultimate and only expression of "fine art" photography? In the immediate or near term future?

Sounds like sophistry to me. In your article, you assert, without more, that the derivation is true.

Do you have any authority for the proposition that this ordinary English word bears a different meaning in this context to that which it bears in any (every?) other context in which it is used?

Fine wine? Fine dining?

Jeremy

I don't know how good it is, but the 'Online Etymology Dictionary' has

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fine

How relevant that definition is to application of the term in the English language in the context we're discussing, I don't know. Beaux / fine? But I don't think there are many 'ordinary' English words - by which I mean, they tend to have histories - many crossing languages - which involve adaptations in their meanings.

I wouldn't waste time quibbling about etymology. "fine" may well be (probably is) derived from the same Latin root as finale, finally and similar words in other languages (such as fin in French).

The giant and unjustified leap was from that derivation to a meaning for the word both unique to this particular context and substantially different from that which it bears in other contexts. The first definition at the site you mention, "perfected, of highest quality" seems to me perfectly adequate.

Jeremy

Yes, quibbling about etymology sounds like a terrible waste of time. I hope never to do it. Awful. But taking an etymology into account might not be a waste of time.

I don't know that the derivation Nick suggests is justified, but I also don't know that simply saying '"perfected, of highest quality" seems to me perfectly adequate' cuts much mustard, either!

The reason the definition I quote is valid is that it is in concordance with the way in which the word is used everywhere else. The reason Nick's definition isn't valid is that it is unique.

Simple.

Jeremy

OK, let's take the definition of 'fine' that Jeremy thinks to be perfectly adequate - "perfected, of highest quality" - and use that to define 'fine art'. We then might offer the term 'perfected, of the highest quality art' instead of 'fine art'.

According to the broader account of fine art that I've suggested earlier in this thread - including a wide range of ambitions and outcomes - such insistence on perfection and quality doesn't match up to an awful lot of what's generally recognised as important fine art done since the early 20th century. The definition brings us back pretty close to the terms Alain was using to describe fine art photography, but is in many ways quite removed from fine art as it's spoken of in the broader art world.

Can 'fine art photography' as the term's generally used on this site be extended to include more than that? To use an example I used earlier, could a snapshot printed on photocopy paper in a low quality printer (uncalibrated - imagine!) ever be considered fine art photography as the term's used on this site?

But that´s the trouble, Chris: we can´t get a single definition of the term on this site! Each writer on this site has a different interpretation of it which, basically, is where we all came in.

Come to think of it, I have a gut feeling that so-called artists are the wrong people to consult. I think that we might well get a more true definition by consulting the great unwashed out there: remember the pile of bricks at the Tate - ten thousand quid´s worth of them - I don´t think a single member of the public would have considered them a work of art but the established order of the art world leaped upon them as the latest thing, yet another new medium to raise the number of pieces of rubbish with which to fill expensive corporate foyers.

I see exactly the same thing when I note the huge photographic prints of bleak apartment buildings that are suddenly transformed from mere industrial record shots into art. Just because somebody said so. Perhaps it´s just a German thing...

Rob C

I think that you're right, Rob C - asking artists what art is isn't necessarily the best way to go. But I also don't know that the general public (by which I suppose we mean something like, the majority of people who don't have specialist training in fine art) have got a good answer, either. (Would we consult a non-specialist public if we wanted a definition of the term 'neurology'? It probably wouldn't be our first choice.)

As far as I can tell, there's no clear, generally agreed definition of 'fine art'. What there is, is a lot of discussion about what it is. In fact, you could say that that's one of the defining characteristics of fine art - that it repeatedly raises the question of what art is. Art can raise lots of other questions, too, but that question keeps cropping up. And it crops up not just among artists, but among writers, critics, curators, dealers, theorists and historians too. As a result of the arguments that take place, areas of consensus develop - but they continue to be contested. Thus, we could say that art's a pretty unstable thing, and not just one thing.

I think a way to proceed is suggested in one of your earlier comments about the way photography can have different roles in different contexts, and by the example of the same photograph appearing in different contexts (fridge door, gallery wall etc.). The question stops being 'what is fine art photography' and becomes 'under what circumstances might a photograph become fine art'? The answer then will be primarily concerned with context - possibly a combination of intention, location, and reception. Is the photograph intended to be engaged as a work of fine art? Is it presented in a form that fine art is or could be presented? Is it received, treated and possibly exchanged as a work of fine art?

This last position leaves things very open still, but I think it's the way the art world works. The greater the authority of all three constituents - by which I mean, the more readily they are legitimised in the current art world - the clearer the status of the photograph as a work of art.

In short, the art world (artists, curators, galleries, critics, collectors and so on) decides what is important art. And its decisions can be underwritten by all kinds of motives, some of which are explicit, some not; some justified, some not. What we can do, is to continue to ask on what grounds such decisions are justified.

Well, that's the way it looks to me.

Whether you think it valid or not, the definition is certainly not unique. 60 secs research revealed the meaning of the term 'fine' in an art context.

The point you are missing is that it's not do do with quality of craft - which is the more common usage of the word fine - but more the purity of the concept and the fact that there is no utility to the work. It is what it is; what it is for is not relevant, the work is an end in itself and thus fine means 'finished' (L. finis) as opposed to 'good'.

Someone raised the etymology of the word fine - it is important here. Finederived from French means 'good or finely crafted', but from Latin it means 'finished'. Hence the commonly misunderstood term 'fine art'.

Here's another quote:

"Ultimately, the term fine in 'fine art' comes from the concept of final cause, or purpose, or end, in the philosophy of Aristotle. The final cause of fine art is the art object itself; it is not a means to another end except perhaps to please those who behold it."

I see no paradox here - your friend is an artist and is thus qualified to decide which of his works should called art.

Like I suggested, art is what is created by an artist, in whatever medium he or she chooses.

But the above statement is not what you are saying in the later one, where you introduce the flexibility that allows the artist to say WHEN his work might be art; the first statement, by being a straighforward proposition of meaning, would indicate that ALL work done by an artist is art, regardless of whether good or bad, or even whether the artist considers it to be art.

So you see, far from simple.

I am also a little worried about the second concept, that no medium is intrinsically art: if not art, what is painting, ballet, opera or any other such endeavour where art is its sole reason for being? It might not be good art, possibly will be poor art, but isn´t it art nonetheless?

I exclude photography here because there are many instances where it has no artistic intent at all, but is purely functional, a route to something else such as information. Not, of course, that it cannot also be art.

Rob C

You can exclude opera as well Rob. There's nothing like a healthy dose of Wagner coupled with a motion sensor to keep deer out of the vegetable garden.

Peter J

You can also exclude painting. I suspect most (but surely not all) house painters think that the purpose of their work is to protect the house, not as "art".

Maybe doing art is more important than defining art, at least for artists ;-)

To address an attempt at definition, art is more about intent and circumstances than about fact. Think about Marcel Duchamp's Urinoir. It was considered art because of the circumstances in which it was shown. In it's intended location it was considered to be, well, a urinoir!

Marcel Duchamp's page on Wikipedia

Note: the urinoir is called a "fountain" on Wikipedia.

Alain - Duchamp's Fountain (as it's known - see
http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cg...ext&texttype=10
for example) is a great case. In one context, it's a urinal; in another, it's one of the most important works of art of the 20th century. It achieves this shift because, as you say, of an intention, or a claim, and a shift of context. And that, I think, is the idea or concept that Duchamp refers to, and which has altered the face of much art since.

And it's that idea that lies behind the shift of a photograph from a fridge door to an art gallery - the status of the photograph changes with intention and location. Then it all depends on reception - could it be considered important and if so, on what grounds?

And I'm sure that for an artist, doing art is more important than defining it!

Cheers, Chris

The initial response to Duchamp's urinoir fountain was ridicule, rejection and negative reviews. It's a frequent initial response to cutting edge work. Whether this reaction defines art or not is another question. Maybe it does.

Let's do Art!

Trouble is, Alain, I think it is still a pot to piss in, no more and no less. I don´t for a moment accept that because the current establishment changed its position from that of the establishment of Duchamp´s time and bowed down to the urinal that that is any confirmation of status.

In fact, is is just another example of the Tate´s bricks. (Cutting-edge is often no more than a sobriquet applied to anything that doesn´t really have a lot to recommend it; how many stock libraries use that word to sell common or garden images that are the same as everybody else´s; words, words, and more words spoken so quickly as to deceive the ear!)

To accept otherwise is to say that anything that the so-called artist says is art is, by definition, art. I´m not here calling Duchamp the so-called artist, by the way.

Look, we all have access to James´s recent photographs in the M8 thread. Let´s take two of his shots as examples: the one of the girl up against the building is, to me, photographic art; also, the little picture of the two kids sitting might be in the same category of expression. I don´t for a moment say that James makes any claims for the pics - it´s just my easy example. His other shot of the "Heiress" girl does not, for me, get anywhere near being art. It just looks competent photography, commercial, and says nothing else to me at all. I stress again, James has made no claims to anything - his shots are just easy to find on this site.

http://www.pirellical.com/thecal/home.html

Have a look at this link and turn to the Sarah Moon production for 1972. I think she is the only one that has shot the calendar that has turned it into a work of art. Some of the others are red hot photographers, some not so much; but the essence of Moon comes through in everything, as it does in all of the published commercial work of hers that I have seen. Another blessed one for whom work and personal are one and the same.

Rob C

Rob,

To most people "art" is what they like.

A significant leap forward in understanding art is extending our perception of what art is to things that we do not like, things that we find objectionable or things we have not so far considered art.

That's Duchamps' breakhrough: to challenge our conception of what is and what isn't art, of what art might be.

One the reason why his pissotiere has remained a challenge for people pondering what is art is because no one so far has provided a satisfying statement about why it is or it is not art.

Yes, of course, Alain but that does not mean that the thing in question doesn´t have to have artistic credentials, at least something to save it from being nothing more than object.

Look, take Gaudi: he broke a hell of a lot of tiles and stuck them on walls. You might say, if you had a mind to, that they remain nothing but broken tiles. But they do not: Gaudi made them into something so much more than the sum of their parts. So well, in fact, that architect after architect has copied him. You could possibly suggest that all Gaudi did was extend the idea of the mosaic, but I think that would be a miserable thing to think: he added value.

As with the Moon Pirelli, which I think is art. Giacobetti comes close, fairly groundbreaking work in what I believe the French call charme photography, at least for its day - but I don´t think it is art. But I do like it very much, so to go back to your post, how does that square with the understanding of art if I can´t define something that I like very much as art?

I understand that I am not "most people" as in your post, but I do accept many things as art without liking them in the least. I don´t like Gauguin much but I do accept him as an important artist; I do love Van Gogh without really thinking him to be in any way as great or accomplished an artist as he is a personality; without his pain he would not have been so highy rated in retrospect. The examples could go on all night -it´s 23 hrs. in Mallorca right now and I´m up at 7.30 in the morning to get to the market do buy provisions for the week.

Buenas noches - Rob C

Another leap of art asked by the surrealist and modern art movements is extending the concept of art to things that we previously considered objects.

In that sense the definition of art, if there can ever be one, has to be understood in the context of a specific art movement. Prior to Duchamps a urinoir was a urinoir. After Duchamps, we argue whether it is art or oject or both !

Now Magritte made the problem worse by using this quandary as title for one of his paintings: Ceci n'est pas une pipe (this is not a pipe). . .


Ceci n'est pas une Pipe - Henri Magritte

I stand by my statement that no medium is intrinsically art; how can it be otherwise since the intent of the work's creator is part of the whole art 'thing'?

Painting - anyone can paint, including monkeys.
Ballet, Opera etc can be just entertainment.

All of these can be art, as can photography, but the medium does not make them so.

So, how would you guess the monkey´s intent in order to justify its efforts as being or not being art; since when does art not have the right to entertain?

Rob C

This may be an article of interest:

http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=b24...95-a5b031d003c5

My view of Duchamps is that he's just another one of those peculiarly French philosophers who comes along every once in a while and manages to promote a sophomoric concept into a revenue-producing job. And when I say sophomoric, I mean that literally: what young liberal arts major hasn't dipped into the question of what is, and what is not art, what is, and what is not reality, etc.?

As for not being able to say whether a urinal is or is not art, well, a lot of people have said that it isn't (or is); it's just that the critical/professional establishment prefers to keep the answer ambiguous, as a way of Sticking It to the Man (even though, as in the commercial, they are the Man.)

The question Duchamps never answered is that if his urinal is art, is a second identical urinal also art? How about the 30th? Try to sell the 3000th identical urinal as art in a gallery and you'll soon find out how much this art is worth -- as much as a urinal is. Maybe even less, since people who are actually shopping for urinals don't usually go to art galleries.

DuChamps and his intellectual descendants are just more 20th century silliness. They'll soon be cleaned up by history.

JC

There's little argument in the art world that would suggest that Duchamp's readymades aren't important to the history of art, whether we like it or not. I think the danger with this line of argument is that we replace the 'what is art?' question with the 'but is it art?' question. In the end, I don't think either will produce an adequate answer.

Remember, the question was how the term 'fine art photography' is used on this site.

Maybe an interesting/ fun way forward is this: given all that has been said previously in this thread, can people suggest ONE criterion according to which they think a photograph might be judged to be a work of fine art? Maybe post/ link to an example? I need to think what mine would be...

OK, I've thought about it. I think it's better to put the work first - mine's one by Richard Billingham - see

http://www.bbc.co.uk/photography/genius/ga...illingham.shtml

and I'd say it's 'fine art photography' because it challenges the conventions of 'high art' by depicting a truth of working-class experience (as opposed to romanticising or aestheticising that experience, which has happened so much in the history of art) and exhibiting it in a 'high art' context - the art gallery.

So, I think it's a photograph that constitutes important art.

Chris,

Excellent example :-)