16
What is Fine Art?
Posted by Mark Esposito | Posted in Fine Art | Posted on 16-10-2009

Lake Lure - Fall scene - D3x | Micro Nikkor 105mm
In the online photography community there is a serious hang-up over the term Professional, which I’ll not get into, because there is no right answer. Some define the term as someone that makes their living with Photography, and others use it as a term to indicate a level of experience.
I’m more interested in the term Fine Art, and this is even tougher to define. Right from the start, having -Fine- in the term causes problems, because of the qualitative connotations. After-all, it’s Fine Art, not pretty good Art. So it sounds like it’s all about how good it is, but that path is wrought with problems as the tendency will be to formularize every aspect of photography.
Which qualities are the ones I need in Photography to be able to call a print Fine Art? Sharpness, composition, perfect color palette, a certain depth of field, paper type, the mat or frame, etc. Maybe five hours of color correction in Photoshop will make it Fine Art. If we go down this road, when is enough enough?
Actually I don’t believe that Fine Art refers to some formula of perfect photographic mechanics. If you can stand a Jazz analogy – some tone purists criticized Miles Davis for the quality of his sound. It was airy at times. (Think noisy in terms of photography.) However, once you got over your hangup about his non-orchestral sound, you could start to see that the airy sound introduced an artistic element, or a unique quality that made Miles Davis something special. The air in his tone became part of his art.
He broke the so-called rules and made art.
Dictionary.com has this to say about Fine Art: a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness
That definition partially works for me, and I find the idea of Intent especially important. Beyond Intent, which I already have, my current and personal criteria for my own work:
1. It must have a spark of life. If the paper opened and the photo took a breath, I wouldn’t be surprised. Startled maybe :^}
2. It must have the highest quality presentation
Ok, so I introduced a personal rule of quality here, but of course there is nothing wrong with quality. What Fine Art is NOT is a list of rules defining quality in all aspects of photography. (as in noise-free, perfectly sharp, etc)
Alain Briot’s comments on this subject are insightful. I mentioned to him that his definition should really be in the dictionary. Not that everyone will agree, but even the dictionary shows multiple usages for words and terms.
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.
This strikes a balance that I like, and puts the idea of Quality in the right perspective. Please leave your own comments on this subject.
- Mark Esposito (Oct 2009)
-


