1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Dear Guest,

    Apologies for the issues that you may be experiencing with the AP forum. While not ideal, it is reported that access can be gained by using Internet Explorer or MS Edge browsers. Hopefully normal access will be restored though perhaps not until Monday.
    Dismiss Notice

Pierre von Kleist editions

Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by RovingMike, Nov 28, 2019.

  1. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    It's whatever you can persuade the guy with the money it is.
     
    El_Sid likes this.
  2. Dan S

    Dan S Well-Known Member

    Haha I'd like to think It is more than that, but may be correct.
     
  3. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Definitely more than that. I can sort of feel it when I see something that is highly rated, but I would regard as a crude snap. At the Elton John contemporary 20th century exhibition there was a lot that I felt was rubbish, but my wife was impressed with it, far more than with my "nice pictures". And looking at the crowds there, I couldn't persuade myself that they were all pseuds, dupes, or know-nothings. They clearly weren't.

    So I fall back on the old mantra: if you see something you think is bad from a beginner, you explain in patient detail where they are going wrong. If you see same from an intermediate, you point out politely where they might consider improving. If you see same from an advanced worker, you keep quiet and think "Cripes, maybe they know something I don't".
     
    Dan S and SqueamishOssifrage like this.
  4. SqueamishOssifrage

    SqueamishOssifrage Well-Known Member

    Some years ago I had the same question, so I did what I always do on such occasions - I bought a book.

    I read it, and then I read it again.

    To quote Omar Khayyam:'

    "I ... heard great Argument
    About it and about; but evermore
    Came out by the same Door as in I went."

    I still don't really know what constitutes 'fine art photography'.
     
    Dan S and RovingMike like this.
  5. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I can't say that I know either but that good old resource wikipedia comes up with several possibilities* but the main point seems to be whether the picture stands as something in its own right to be hung on the wall and appreciated rather than something recognised as a record, especially if the intent for it to be more than a record was there. So a portrait of my mother, say, is not fine art while it is recognised as a picture of "my old mum" but it can be fine art if the viewer sees it as a depiction of anonymous ageing in a 2019 environment. I think that's why they write such pretentious nonsense to go with the pictures.

    *I like the idea that printing something big automatically makes it fine art.
     
  6. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    My daughter is doing a contemporary fine art degree. Having seen the degree show put on by last years yr 3 students, I couldn’t tell you what fine art was either.
     
    EightBitTony likes this.
  7. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    Art is art.
    Fine art is art for the sake of it.
     
    Zou likes this.
  8. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    So what is art that is not fine?
     
  9. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    That's actually not as flippant as it sounds... I think in 'art' speak, any photograph can be art, but for it to be fine art it generally was created to be art, it wasn't accidental.
     
    EightBitTony likes this.
  10. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    See my answer above. If the creator didn't intend it as art.
     
  11. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    So all the dross I see in my local art society event is fine art? That just redefines fine as meaningless.
     
  12. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    Yes, and maybe.
     
    EightBitTony likes this.
  13. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    Well, in order to define fine art, we first have to define art. Once you know what art is, then art created purely to be art and nothing else, is fine art. It doesn't have to be good fine art.
     
    Andrew Flannigan and Zou like this.
  14. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    Also, to be clear, if any of these questions had actual answers, then we wouldn't need to debate them.
     
  15. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Good luck with that. I have yet to see any definition that doesn't boil down to "I know it when I see it".
     
    El_Sid likes this.
  16. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    ... rather answers this...

     
  17. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    We're saying more or less the same thing in different ways. Is that too complicated for you?
     
  18. Dan S

    Dan S Well-Known Member

    I heard once a description as to what art is, "if it is created by an artist and that artist calls it art, then it is art". So that just leaves who gets to decide who is an artist?
     
  19. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    The artist, and/or art critics/curators/anyone else. Back to square one!
     
    Dan S likes this.
  20. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    You seem to be saying it seems to be generally subjective, Tony seems to be saying there is no consensus, and I reckon it verges toward objective criteria. If you think that's "more or less the same thing" then perhaps it is too complicated for someone. ;)
     

Share This Page