From http://rogerandfrances.eu/photography/fine-art-photography The most puzzling thing about so-called Fine Art photography is how many people have really fixed ideas about it; who want to define it; and who even think that there are only certain things it is allowed to be. The last camp often have fixed ideas about what photography is or isn't or should be, and range from die-hard supporters of the worst of old-fashioned camera club judging standards to those who reject everything as old fashioned, dull and predictable if anyone has ever done anything remotely like it before. They don't care if it's done well: they care only that it is new to them. Why are so so many people so desperate for definitions, limits, permissions? What's wrong with taking pictures, and letting others define them if they want to? Do they really believe that Ansel Adams woke up one morning and said, "I'm going to be a landscape photographer"? Or that Sebastiao Salgado said, "I'm going to do reportage"? What sort of idiot says, "Being a Fine Art photographer would be a good career move"? Is it not more likely that the great photographers took pictures of what fascinated them, and that because they were fascinated by the subject as well as being good photographers, they took good pictures? Cheers, R.