If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Bad photo? Just call it "Fine Art"
PAS Wrote in message:
On 5/5/2016 3:56 PM, PeterN wrote: On 5/5/2016 2:12 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Ron C wrote: Inflated value hype is what jumped out at me in the twitter/ad/spam for the photo. I have no problem with calling the photo "art" but "fine art" seems to (attempt to) put the photo in a more refined class. So what distinguishes "art" from "fine art"? [YMMV] The two terms are actually quite clearly defined, though it is also true that most people have no idea what either of them do mean! Art is "the product of human creativity". It need not be "good" to be art. If anyone anywhere finds something that is man made to be beautiful, attractive, or pleasant in any way... it is art. (Note that the word "art" is heavily overloaded, and there are many other valid meanings. This definition applies to what we are discussing, while other definitions do not.) Fine Art is a type of art. When used in the context of "the fine arts" it means things that appeal to our sense of beauty, or the production of those things. That includes painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry, and music as well as photography. But when applied to photography specifically, Fine Art Photography means as opposed to Commercial Photography which is made with purpose for a customer. Fine Art Photography is made to please the photographer. Hence if we photograph a fashion show, the images are by definition art. If we shoot specific shots because the sponsoring ad agency wants those particular poses to use in commercial advertisements, that is Commercial Photography. And if the photographer notices one particular model looks nice in one specific outfit, and grabs a shot just because... That is a bit of Fine Art. Perhaps most if not all work that is called "abstract" is Fine Art. Anything hanging in a gallery for sale is Fine Art. Fine Art is the landscape you mount and hang in the hallway. A portrait sold to the subject of the photograph is commercial art, but when sold to the general public just because it is a beautiful picture it becomes Fine Art. IIRC Andy Warhol managed to turn some mundane commercial art into fine art. And a huge payday too. AW was a surrealist. A great one... -- Bats can't tell us apart! ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Bad photo? Just call it "Fine Art"
On 5/6/2016 9:45 AM, PAS wrote:
On 5/5/2016 3:44 PM, PeterN wrote: On 5/5/2016 12:49 AM, Tony Cooper wrote: On Wed, 4 May 2016 21:19:12 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-05-05 04:10:30 +0000, Bill W said: On Thu, 05 May 2016 05:54:54 +0200, android wrote: In article , Ken Hart wrote: On 05/04/2016 06:03 PM, Ron C wrote: Saw this photo for sale on twitter and just had to post here for comments. ~~ Marcus Dagan ?@marcusdagan 1h1 hour ago New artwork for sale! - "Philadelphia Abstract" - http://fineartamerica.com/featured/p...poets-eye.html â?¦ @fineartamerica ~~ For those not doing twitter I put a copy in my dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1po3on0jio...Art-1.jpg?dl=0 ~~ I don't know ...is this guy a marketing genus? == Later... Ron C I'm not sure if "genius" is the right word, but he's a marketing something. â??Thereâ??s a sucker born every minute.â?? P. T. Barnumâ??s rival David Hannum You bound to get something cute sooner or later if you make handheld nightshots like that. Get Ya cam and mount a 200mm and set it on 1/2s and you'r goolden... You have to admit the photo is unique. It could be impossible to exactly duplicate that camera shake. ...and that makes it an accident, not a work of art. The difference between accidental and on purpose doesn't determine if something is, or isn't, a work of art. We have seen many images here that were composed and edited most deliberately that are far from works of art. For that matter, accidental actions can result in works of art. While you may not personally agree that Jackson Pollock's pieces are works of art, the art community does. Pollack's style included pouring paint on canvas, squirting paint with a basting syringe, and otherwise distributing paint randomly on a horizontal canvas. The result was based on the flow of paint that Pollock did not control as brush strokes are controlled. So, the result was pure accident. There are two ways to define "work of art": that which is perceived to be great art by others, and that which is created artfully. The photograph in question here could meet either definition. Maybe not by you or me, but by some. Andreas Gursky's "Rhein II" photograph is considered to be a work of art by many. At least one person thought it is a work of art when that person bought a print for US$4.3 million. Personally, I could see both Rhein II and the photo linked to in this thread and not be able to guess which can be purchased for US$4.3 million-plus and which can be purchased for US$88.00 framed. I do wonder if you'd put this photograph by "Poet's Eye" up at auction at Christie's and ask for a starting bid of US$1 million if it would not immediately become a work of art to the art community. Perceived value is really what determines work of art status. Depends on the last name of the maker. About forty years ago one of my clients saw this in a junk store, it reminded him of me, so he bought it for $10, and gave it to me. It turned out to be the original for this. http://www.lornebair.com/pages/books/12150/posters-original-graphics-william-gropper/summation-original-lithograph-ca-1939 Is it art, you tell me. I don't know if it's art but it looks a lot like you, except the subject has more hair than either of us. I had a lot more hair in those days. -- PeterN |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Bad photo? Just call it "Fine Art"
On 5/6/2016 9:46 AM, PAS wrote:
On 5/5/2016 4:08 PM, PeterN wrote: On 5/5/2016 9:07 AM, PAS wrote: On 5/4/2016 7:32 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-05-04 23:22:41 +0000, "MC" said: Ron C wrote: Saw this photo for sale on twitter and just had to post here for comments. ~~ Marcus Dagan @marcusdagan 1h1 hour ago New artwork for sale! - "Philadelphia Abstract" - http://fineartamerica.com/featured/p...-poets-eye.htm l … @fineartamerica ~~ For those not doing twitter I put a copy in my dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1po3on0jio...Art-1.jpg?dl=0 ~~ I don't know ...is this guy a marketing genus? Only if there has been any sales. Yup! This is just another example of the pretentious clap trap of puting a financial value on something in order to justify it as art. Yup! Seeing something as art is a very individual and personal thing and just because someone else has led you to believe it is art does not mean it is art. Yup! I dare say there are an awful lot of mugs around the world crap hanging on their walls. Especially if it is the nauseatingly over-the-top, and mass produced kitsch of Thomas Kinkade I have a fair number of friends who collect Kinkade prints and they've spent a lot of money on them. I've never understood the appeal of them, but it's a personal thing and we all have our likes/dislikes. Someone I knew, now deceased, made a lot of money selling paintings on velvet. He had a deal with the warden of a prison in Spain. The inmates did the painting, from what was essentially a paint by numbers kit. Here is an approximation of the pricing schedule for each of the. Inmates were paid about .25 per painting Warden was paid about $1.00. He imported them and sold them to the retailer for between eight and twenty bucks. Many low income people considered these to be "affordable art." He Ahh, the "Velvet Elvis" comes to mind. I should also mention that he barely got out of Spain, in a fishing boat. -- PeterN |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Bad photo? Just call it "Fine Art"
On 5/6/2016 9:43 AM, PAS wrote:
On 5/5/2016 3:56 PM, PeterN wrote: On 5/5/2016 2:12 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Ron C wrote: Inflated value hype is what jumped out at me in the twitter/ad/spam for the photo. I have no problem with calling the photo "art" but "fine art" seems to (attempt to) put the photo in a more refined class. So what distinguishes "art" from "fine art"? [YMMV] The two terms are actually quite clearly defined, though it is also true that most people have no idea what either of them do mean! Art is "the product of human creativity". It need not be "good" to be art. If anyone anywhere finds something that is man made to be beautiful, attractive, or pleasant in any way... it is art. (Note that the word "art" is heavily overloaded, and there are many other valid meanings. This definition applies to what we are discussing, while other definitions do not.) Fine Art is a type of art. When used in the context of "the fine arts" it means things that appeal to our sense of beauty, or the production of those things. That includes painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry, and music as well as photography. But when applied to photography specifically, Fine Art Photography means as opposed to Commercial Photography which is made with purpose for a customer. Fine Art Photography is made to please the photographer. Hence if we photograph a fashion show, the images are by definition art. If we shoot specific shots because the sponsoring ad agency wants those particular poses to use in commercial advertisements, that is Commercial Photography. And if the photographer notices one particular model looks nice in one specific outfit, and grabs a shot just because... That is a bit of Fine Art. Perhaps most if not all work that is called "abstract" is Fine Art. Anything hanging in a gallery for sale is Fine Art. Fine Art is the landscape you mount and hang in the hallway. A portrait sold to the subject of the photograph is commercial art, but when sold to the general public just because it is a beautiful picture it becomes Fine Art. IIRC Andy Warhol managed to turn some mundane commercial art into fine art. And a huge payday too. Nothing wrong with being paid. -- PeterN |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Bad photo? Just call it "Fine Art"
PeterN Wrote in message:
On 5/6/2016 9:43 AM, PAS wrote: On 5/5/2016 3:56 PM, PeterN wrote: On 5/5/2016 2:12 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Ron C wrote: Inflated value hype is what jumped out at me in the twitter/ad/spam for the photo. I have no problem with calling the photo "art" but "fine art" seems to (attempt to) put the photo in a more refined class. So what distinguishes "art" from "fine art"? [YMMV] The two terms are actually quite clearly defined, though it is also true that most people have no idea what either of them do mean! Art is "the product of human creativity". It need not be "good" to be art. If anyone anywhere finds something that is man made to be beautiful, attractive, or pleasant in any way... it is art. (Note that the word "art" is heavily overloaded, and there are many other valid meanings. This definition applies to what we are discussing, while other definitions do not.) Fine Art is a type of art. When used in the context of "the fine arts" it means things that appeal to our sense of beauty, or the production of those things. That includes painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry, and music as well as photography. But when applied to photography specifically, Fine Art Photography means as opposed to Commercial Photography which is made with purpose for a customer. Fine Art Photography is made to please the photographer. Hence if we photograph a fashion show, the images are by definition art. If we shoot specific shots because the sponsoring ad agency wants those particular poses to use in commercial advertisements, that is Commercial Photography. And if the photographer notices one particular model looks nice in one specific outfit, and grabs a shot just because... That is a bit of Fine Art. Perhaps most if not all work that is called "abstract" is Fine Art. Anything hanging in a gallery for sale is Fine Art. Fine Art is the landscape you mount and hang in the hallway. A portrait sold to the subject of the photograph is commercial art, but when sold to the general public just because it is a beautiful picture it becomes Fine Art. IIRC Andy Warhol managed to turn some mundane commercial art into fine art. And a huge payday too. Nothing wrong with being paid. No... It's the other way around that sucks. :-p -- Bats can't tell us apart! ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Bad photo? Just call it "Fine Art"
On 2016-05-07 17:24:59 +0000, George Kerby said:
On 5/4/16 5:03 PM, in article , "Ron C" wrote: Saw this photo for sale on twitter and just had to post here for comments. ~~ Marcus Dagan @marcusdagan 1h1 hour ago New artwork for sale! - "Philadelphia Abstract" - http://fineartamerica.com/featured/p...poets-eye.html … @fineartamerica ~~ For those not doing twitter I put a copy in my dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1po3on0jio...Art-1.jpg?dl=0 ~~ I don't know ...is this guy a marketing genus? == Later... Ron C The dude needs a tripod... In a plane? The TSA and the guy in the seat next to him would be a tad miffed. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Bad photo? Just call it "Fine Art"
On 5/7/16 12:36 PM, in article 2016050710364055133-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" wrote: On 2016-05-07 17:24:59 +0000, George Kerby said: On 5/4/16 5:03 PM, in article , "Ron C" wrote: Saw this photo for sale on twitter and just had to post here for comments. ~~ Marcus Dagan @marcusdagan 1h1 hour ago New artwork for sale! - "Philadelphia Abstract" - http://fineartamerica.com/featured/p...poets-eye.html … @fineartamerica ~~ For those not doing twitter I put a copy in my dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1po3on0jio...Art-1.jpg?dl=0 ~~ I don't know ...is this guy a marketing genus? == Later... Ron C The dude needs a tripod... In a plane? The TSA and the guy in the seat next to him would be a tad miffed. Oops! Missed that part. Then make it a Steadicam, that would give the guy next to him something to really bitch about! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Corset-Boi" Bob "Lionel Lauer" Larter has grown a "pair" and returned to AUK................ | \The Great One\ | Digital Photography | 0 | July 14th 09 12:04 AM |
canon fine art paper "museum etching" | william kossack | Digital Photography | 0 | February 3rd 08 05:39 PM |
"rec.photo.digital.txt" and "rec.photo.digital.dat" Filter Data Updatedand Posted | SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 | Digital Photography | 0 | December 3rd 07 06:47 AM |
Why does English call a "still life" what the Italians call "Natura Morta" | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 26 | April 28th 07 09:02 PM |
"Print So Fine" paper developer | [email protected] | In The Darkroom | 20 | February 13th 06 01:31 AM |