A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bad photo? Just call it "Fine Art"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old May 6th 16, 03:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default 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  
Old May 6th 16, 03:35 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default 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  
Old May 6th 16, 03:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default 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  
Old May 6th 16, 03:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default 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  
Old May 6th 16, 03:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default 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/
  #36  
Old May 7th 16, 06:24 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
George Kerby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Bad photo? Just call it "Fine Art"




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...

  #37  
Old May 7th 16, 06:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old May 7th 16, 06:51 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
George Kerby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 06:39 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 07:47 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 02:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.