In July I posted here a piece entitled "The photograph as art". Photographer and musician Joseph Crachiola, writer of the wonderful Improvisations left a great comment which I am copying below:
"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 to 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"
As someone involved in a Fine Art Photography group on deviantArt (yes, I am back with it, with a brand new team of administrators and contributors and much enthusiasm) the question about what constitutes fine art and what does not keeps on coming up. I don't believe in a hierarchy such as fine art and popular art or indeed fine art photography versus commercial.
This is why I take heed of Joe's very wise words.
(All photos modelled by Alex B. unless otherwise stated)
Photographer: Schwanberg
Photographer: David Nuttall
As someone involved in a Fine Art Photography group on deviantArt (yes, I am back with it, with a brand new team of administrators and contributors and much enthusiasm) the question about what constitutes fine art and what does not keeps on coming up. I don't believe in a hierarchy such as fine art and popular art or indeed fine art photography versus commercial.
Photographer: Neil Huxtable, models myself and Cidy
This is why I take heed of Joe's very wise words.
(All photos modelled by Alex B. unless otherwise stated)
I do agree with Joe. I get confused by the labels we attach to contemporary art. So much falls in between, and if sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, then a work of art is just a work of art. I have worked with fine arts purists who do not even want the model to wear nail enamel. I have worked with photographers like Joe who shoot models without makeup but may also hire an MUA when it is needed for a certain purpose.
ReplyDeleteRichard Avedon's commercial work is now among the great fine art of the last century. Much of Helmut Newton's work was commissioned. It's the same in all the arts, including theatre. Andrew Lloyd Weber is customarily discarded by academic critics as "commercial." Same thing with Neil Simon, although Noel Coward makes the "A(art) list" because, I suppose, he was a commercial success but he is dead now.
If Shakespeare were working today, I suppose he would be ruled a "hack" because he was so prolific and big at the box office. Even in his own time, his commercial success was resented. A record exists of another playwright calling him "an upstart crow dancing in our feathers."
As far as group work, it has to be enjoyable. I don't want to associate with work beneath my own standard, but nit-picking isn't fun.
Thanks UL. You and I are on the same wave-length. At the end of the day taste is something that grows out of the experience of looking at much work and comparing images with each other and learning to identify instinctively what works and what does not. Personally I look for a concept or a narrative, not necessarily a linear narrative but the image has to communicate some emotion. I can do without labels, though when you begin labels and classiication might help
ReplyDeleteI'll let you in on a secret:
ReplyDelete"Fine art" is a poofy buzz-phrase.
An attempt to define it is about as worthwhile as a greeting card's attempt to justify a holiday that the company who produced it created.
Nothing about what makes art more or less "fine" is anything but subjective.
What does fine mean, anyway? Nothing that particularly applies to art.
The group may as well be called "photography that the administrators thought was pretty good."
Voting with anything other than your gut instinct is disingenuous. But as I mentioned in a group discussion on the subject, being able to justify your instincts is important.
(It's a secret because it's my opinion).
Labels fascinate me. They do indeed classify and divide, but in trying to fit a work into a category, you find out where it fits and where it doesn't. You are right. They teach us in the beginning, and I also think they give us something to defy as we master skills. Kind of like the floor in dance - something to work against and depart from.
ReplyDeleteA fascinating post.
Interesting discussion. I'm flattered that you quoted me. It seems to be human nature to want to classify and define everything. We have been doing it since the beginning of time. Personally, I like the idea of things not being so well defined, especially in the world of creative endeavors. At the same time, the discussion keeps things interesting. I am in the process of putting together two print exhibitions right now, and even though I have been given total freedom in the process, I find myself thinking both about what I like and feel is my best work, but also thinking about which pieces of art might sell. It's a fact of life that one has to pay the rent.
ReplyDeleteHatebunny, I agree, being able to justify your gut instincts is very important, the more so because you need to justify them to yourself as well as others.
ReplyDeleteUL, labels are fascinating, even more so because they can be interchanged. Nothing is ever permanently set and the ability to be flexible is what comes with experience.
Joe, your comment was brilliant. Thank you for adding to it. Art cannot be separated from the market, as this is what ultimately sustains it. The relationship is complex, no doubt, but it is a relationship that influences art's raison d'etre.
Gustavo Osmar Santos
ReplyDeleteEstuvo Aquí...wonderfull.