A series of events, not necessarily connected, has led me to reconsider what we mean by fine art photography.
I am a member of deviantArt, where I have a virtual gallery showcasing my modelling work. On deviantArt I am co-founder of Fineart-photography, a group which earlier had club status and which in actuality, if not in principle, operates on the basis of a fairly broad understanding of what 'fine art photography' might be, particularly in the context of an online community. I got involved with the club as admin last summer, doing a couple of interviews, and then when groups started in January on deviantArt I was asked by the founder whether I wanted to come on board as co-founder.
There is another group on deviantArt with more or less the same name, the difference is where the hyphen falls. This second group, named Fine-art-photography was founded four months ago, and I am an ordinary member of it. This other group aims more specfically at showcasing the "very best" of fine art photography on deviantArt. And undoubtedly, even though their names may not include the words "fine art photography", there are many more groups on dA which aim to represent the best artistic photography made by the 'deviant' community.
It is highly desirable that there should be so many different groups with similar and/or overlapping aims, deviantArt is a global online community and if there was only one group it would be a sycophantic one and it could not cope with the sheer number of submissions.
The views I am expressing here are entirely my own, I am not representing any deviantArt group, I really want to make this clear. I am just intrigued by the definition of "fine art photography", there seems to be several interpretations of its meaning - and that's the way it should be, for ultimately it is a fluid term. Fine art photography is a slippery label that encompasses artistic nude, which is what I do as a model - again there are as many definitions of artistic nude to match the diversity of its photographic rendition.
Fine art photography is, in my view, a loose term, which comes with a historical baggage, and which we need not reject. But inevitably we need to realize that what is fine art photography today is not what it was yesterday. It simply cannot be. We also need to be wary of any attempt at giving it finality, without recognizing it as a construct. In other words, we need to accept that terms and frames of reference are changeable and have to change to match their context.
In her critical introduction to photography Liz Wells contextualizes and historicizes the largely artificial divide between photography as a means of visual communication, which would encompass commercial photography, and photography whose aims are "aesthetic". The keyword here is art and she reminds us of the whole set of art practices relating to the arts establishment (galleries, museums, public and private sponsorship, publication) which constitute art, against a more common understanding of photography as 'art' equating the latter solely with 'expressive skill' informed by an aesthetic vision.
Indeed when we mention art, it truly begs the question of what art is. Photography has been involved in debates about its status as art from inception - the first time photography was described as fine art was at a Camera Club exhibition in Vienna in 1881. Yet many photographers have tended to eschew the artist label for themselves, feeling more comfortable with the notion of photography as craft.
Already in 1930, Walter Benjamin stressed the "anti-elitist potential of photography" when he wrote about the withering "aura' of a fine art work i.e a painting, in the time of "mass reproduction".
Writing in 1982, Peter Wollen notes:
For photography to be an art involves reformulating notions of art, rejecting both material and formal purism and the separation of art from commerce as distinct semiotic practices that never interlock.
More could and should be said about fine art photography today and what we want it to be - in other words set its parameters in a context sensitive manner. Conversely, we should also think of what we don't want it to be e.g. the danger of turning fine art codes, ultimately, into mechanisms of social differentiation.
This discussion cannot be exhausted in this short post and will have to be picked up again. As always commments are most welcome.
(All photos modelled by Alex B.)
Photographer: Marc Wainwright
There is another group on deviantArt with more or less the same name, the difference is where the hyphen falls. This second group, named Fine-art-photography was founded four months ago, and I am an ordinary member of it. This other group aims more specfically at showcasing the "very best" of fine art photography on deviantArt. And undoubtedly, even though their names may not include the words "fine art photography", there are many more groups on dA which aim to represent the best artistic photography made by the 'deviant' community.
Photographer: Marc Wainwright
It is highly desirable that there should be so many different groups with similar and/or overlapping aims, deviantArt is a global online community and if there was only one group it would be a sycophantic one and it could not cope with the sheer number of submissions.
The views I am expressing here are entirely my own, I am not representing any deviantArt group, I really want to make this clear. I am just intrigued by the definition of "fine art photography", there seems to be several interpretations of its meaning - and that's the way it should be, for ultimately it is a fluid term. Fine art photography is a slippery label that encompasses artistic nude, which is what I do as a model - again there are as many definitions of artistic nude to match the diversity of its photographic rendition.
Photographer: David J. Green
In her critical introduction to photography Liz Wells contextualizes and historicizes the largely artificial divide between photography as a means of visual communication, which would encompass commercial photography, and photography whose aims are "aesthetic". The keyword here is art and she reminds us of the whole set of art practices relating to the arts establishment (galleries, museums, public and private sponsorship, publication) which constitute art, against a more common understanding of photography as 'art' equating the latter solely with 'expressive skill' informed by an aesthetic vision.
Photographer: David John Green
Already in 1930, Walter Benjamin stressed the "anti-elitist potential of photography" when he wrote about the withering "aura' of a fine art work i.e a painting, in the time of "mass reproduction".
Photographer: Carl Williams
For photography to be an art involves reformulating notions of art, rejecting both material and formal purism and the separation of art from commerce as distinct semiotic practices that never interlock.
More could and should be said about fine art photography today and what we want it to be - in other words set its parameters in a context sensitive manner. Conversely, we should also think of what we don't want it to be e.g. the danger of turning fine art codes, ultimately, into mechanisms of social differentiation.
This discussion cannot be exhausted in this short post and will have to be picked up again. As always commments are most welcome.
Photographer: Martin Robinson
(All photos modelled by Alex B.)
I'm not sure what I can really contribute to what you've already said.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned that photography has been in a long series of debates since it's inception over its legitimacy as an art form at all.
I'm still learning about the history and biographies of photographers, so I could be way out on this. But photographers like Ansel Adams and Edward Weston (I surely don't need bore you with the academic comparison, but they were more than just contemporaries - they had the same philosophies on what photography should be) pretty much revolutionized the notion that photography can be considered art. But it kind of stalled there. A good chunk of society still has a mid-20th-century aesthetic sense of what "fine-art" photography is supposed to be, and in looking for the balance between realism and abstraction tend to gravitate towards styles that have already been established.
That attitude doesn't allow art to evolve.
The debates over legitimacy persist. The most recent are people who reject digital photography (they said the same things about film when it replaced silver-coated glass). Some are okay with digital as long as one doesn't mess with it in Photoshop (but darkroom manipulations are totally acceptable) There are even some today in 2010 who still insist that photography itself can't be art.
I'm almost getting tired of even getting involved with the discussion, anymore.
Thanks Eric for taking the time to comment. The discussion is relevant in so far as we are both involved with the fine art photography group and the time has come for some stocktaking. Apparently the group still has a mission statement carried over from the club days which needs to be updated.
ReplyDeleteSo I wanted to revisit some of the debates surrounding fine art photography in view of that commitment. I am actually not at all disagreeing with you, in practice I have seen that in terms of the choices we seem to make when submissions come in we tend to make the same kind of selections.Clearly these are informed by our respective understanding of art photography.
Thanks again for your input
Where does one begin in this sort of discussion? As you and Eric pointed out, the debate has gone on forever, and will probably never end. So much photography has been created that was done for commercial purposes, but then over time has been deemed by the "experts" to be fine art. And so much so-called "fine art" photography isn't worth the paper it is printed on. It's good to keep the discussion alive, if for no other reason than it keeps us all thinking and questioning, but it seems to me that we should just keep on doing what we do. If one has something say, then say it. Put the work out there, and it will be accepted or not, and even if one's work doesn't gain any popular acclaim, that doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't art.
ReplyDelete