Fine art photography [Archive] - Rangefinderforum.com

JFH

08-23-2008, 06:40

I'm just a lowly amateur so please don't be too hard on me, but as I see it:

If I "take a picture" and I like it, then that's OK.

If I like it and you like it (for whatever reason) then it's probably a reasonably good picture.

If perhaps 6 of the "right" people like it, and maybe it "conforms" to some previously set rules or expectations, then it's "art."

The decision rests with the beholder. Whether something is actually "art" or not is a very subjective thing. I guess I tend to be a "mechanic" more than an artist... so for me I often cringe when a mechanically terrible.. out of focus, not properly exposed, odd composition, etc... photo is explained as "art." But then I don't have a fine arts degree or training, so I expect that explanations are often lost on me..

Then of course there are the commercial aspects, as stated above... rather "iffy."

35mmdelux

08-23-2008, 08:36

if your looking for so-called fine art photog you might be better served by talking with landscape photographers.

I observed some photogs calling themselves "fine art photogs" and I wonder if they even know what this means? To me, everyone is basically a photographer -- it is the viewing or buying public that filters out the fine photographers from the "amatuers."

We all might be better served by first defining what fine art means..

J. Borger

08-23-2008, 09:02

I observed some photogs calling themselves "fine art photogs" and I wonder if they even know what this means? To me, everyone is basically a photographer -- it is the viewing or buying public that filters out the fine photographers from the "amatuers."

We all might be better served by first defining what fine art means..
Well stated. "Fine art photograhy" to me is just a hollow concept .... just like the concept of pro vs amateur photographer..... it says nothing about the quality or content of the photographs.....

tmfabian

08-23-2008, 09:26

"Pro," as I have argued unsuccessfully elsewhere on this forum -- does not in any way mean the "pro" is a good photographer, or even has a broad based knowledge of photography, it simply means that is his job.

Pro is only an IRS definition, with no relevance to quality or knowledge.

aye, it's true, the exact definition of a "pro" photographer is anyone who makes greater than or equal to 50% of their income from being a photographer.

"Pro" means nothing of quality.

Chriscrawfordphoto

08-23-2008, 09:31

I'm always amazed at these discussions and how dense some people appear to be. Is it REALLY that hard to understand what art is?

Here, some examples:
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/portfolios/photography/product/product_pics/pics/plumpatrin.jpg
Not fine art photography. This is commercial photography.

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/portfolios/photography/product/product_pics/pics/CW261401.jpg
More commercial photography

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/grandpa/images/pics/dog1.jpg
This is fine art.

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/abandoned/images/pics/feighner-farm4.jpg
This is also art.

Like others here have said, the definition of art has been in place academically and in the marketplace for a very long time now. It isn't rocket science. :bang:

Thardy

08-23-2008, 10:26

amateriat

08-23-2008, 11:11

"Fine Art" photography is often used commercially, as Fred illustrates. I refer to most of what I do as "Fine Art" because that's how it starts out. How it ends up, usage-wise, I can't predict.

- Barrett

rolly

08-23-2008, 12:05

For forty years I have been a writer. For thirty of those years I wrote poems; lately fiction. I never made money from poetry; I did make money, because I was seen as a "serious" writer from readings, teaching, workshops, residencies, book contracts, ghost writing, magazine articles, tutoring, editing. Through it all, I wrote the poems and fiction that not only mattered to me, in a practical yet mysterious way I had to write them, all the failures and the few really good poems, it was as if the work itself was as important as the product, the art or the artifacts. This kind of work has nothing directly to do with making money or having a career as an "artist." If I were a religious sort I would say it has to do with stepping away from myself, and taking a step towards something more genuine. And I certainly don't think the IRS is qualified to tell me what art is. They aren't collecting art. They are collecting taxes. Yeats admonished Irish poets to learn their trade-- be part of a tradition and master a craft. But artistry is more than tradition and craft.

I don't have the history with photography that I have with writing. So I don't call myself a photographer and mean that I am an artist with a camera. But the same impulse I have when I write a story or try to find the way to get a character to talk like himself and not like I personally talk-- to get beyond me-- I am working in the same spirit with film. I shoot photos because it seems to take me somewhere that is at once closer to the real world "out there" and at the same time is like a blueprint of what is not exactly visible, but can be felt.

In that sense I completely agree with the examples given above of the four pictures. The latter two, as opposed to the commercial shots, whether they are great art or failed art, they aspire towards seeing the world as it is and in seeing truly, showing the spirit and feel of that moment and place.

There are many people in this forum who, even though they never call themselves artists, nevertheless, when I see their work, I would say they are doing art. Some of our work falls below a kind of threshold and it's not so good; some work rises above and it is good. There is a quality of having captured more than the sum of the parts of the subject matter in the photo. And there is persistence. Doing something because one has to.

The photographer Philip Perkis (book: The Sadness of Men) once said he had been trying for twenty years to take a good photo of some crates by a field of potatoes. That is art-- to come back year after year to try to see and make a picture of those crates, and to not be satisfied until one gets it right. So a lot of failure is built into making a thing like Perkis was trying to make but there is no way to measure it by some set of external guidelines or standards or tax codes. Doubtless even an exuberant shooter like Winogrand knew that most of what he was shooting wasn't what he was looking for.

newspaperguy

08-23-2008, 12:24

Thank you, rolly.
Well 'said.'
As someone who has been paid for words and pictures for more than 50-years,
I seldom think of myself as a fine artist, or even an artist... a cartoonist - maybe?

Roger Hicks

08-23-2008, 12:59

For forty years I have been a writer. For thirty of those years I wrote poems; lately fiction. .
Dear Rolly,

Talent does what it can. Genius does what it must.

(Edit: Oh: and the IRS does not distinguish between art and journalism. Been there, taken the deduction on that.)

Cheers,

R.

Migracer

08-23-2008, 16:26

Fine Art is what the FINE people who have unlimited amounts of money and want some exclusivity by discovering a "new artist". This action elevating their stature among their peers. Andy W painting a can of soup is an example of being in the right place with the right people and was declared a fine artist. That was dumb luck! Ansel Adams spending hundreds of hours on an image from acquisition to final print was a fine artist. Repeatability and the consistency to make images that are considered desirable and sold only in limited signed numbers has to be recognized as a fine art. Luck, hard work with talent and consistency. Take your pick. Non of my pictures I consider art have ever sold the ones that have been paid for are just illustration in my eye.

gns

08-23-2008, 16:45

The op was pretty clear in his request. Looking for first hand info regarding selling your work through art galleries/dealers. Ever since post #5, it has morphed into a dialogue of just what is "Fine art photography". Anybody here have gallery representation? I'd be interested to hear about it myself.

Cheers,
Gary

back alley

08-23-2008, 16:47

Dektol Dan

08-23-2008, 16:57

Help me! I can't catch my breath! Ha Ha Ha!

back alley

08-23-2008, 17:04

what are you laughing at dan?

MickH

08-23-2008, 17:09

Can someone explain to me the difference between Art & Fine Art? Is it just the price-tag?

retnull

08-23-2008, 18:27

The fine art marketplace (paintings, sculpture, photography and other forms) was estimated at upwards of $25 billion per year, internationally (in an article in Art News magazine, a few months ago).

Here in New York City, there is less confusion about what fine art is: you're a fine art photographer if you're represented by a gallery. If you're not part of the system of galleries, curators, museums, fine art press, then you're an amateur who may or may not make some money from their art. The "Art World" is a definable, finite thing, and it exists because of its exclusivity. Think about it: the things in museums are special, extraordinary, and expensive because of all the stuff that wasn't allowed into the museum.

Andreas Gursky, Edward Burtynsky, Jeff Wall, Wolfgang Tillmans, Thomas Ruff, Cindy Sherman, Thomas Struth, Nan Goldin -- these people don't have day jobs because they are part of the Art World.

I guess my real point is: you can debate about how much art is in a particular photograph, but that's completely subjective. The economic activity occurring in the art world is an objective thing. For example, look here:
http://www.artfacts.net/index.php/pageType/ranking/paragraph/4/lang/1
http://www.findartinfo.com/search/listprices.asp?keyword=85808

rolly

08-23-2008, 19:29

Damien Franco

08-24-2008, 02:17

Migracer

08-24-2008, 04:47

I think that right now we live in an age where the definition of fine art in general is changing. The advent of the internet certainly allows that many artists are able to make a living without having any representation (or want) in the "Art World".

If you define Fine Art by representation you miss one thing:

The artists needed that representation for monetary reasons. They needed gallery owners and curators to accept their works so they would sell.

Now a good marketer can make just as much, if not more, money by selling to the masses directly.

This is where the "Art World" is heading. IMHO

Having lived and worked in New York for many years. I had the myopic view of the world too. See Saul Steinberg's New Yorkers Magazine cover. http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details.asp?sid=50326
I worked with my father at his 5 Ave studio during his "Gallery Days" and there is no question That the definition then was, if you were represented in a gallery you were a fine artist. But I completely agree with Damien that the definition has changed. I work at roughly 30 automotive events per year and at many of these venues there are many Fine Artist that make a very comfortable living working these events and internet sales. Google John Lamm, he is my example of what I would like to acheive with my fine art.

retnull

08-24-2008, 05:31

I think that right now we live in an age where the definition of fine art in general is changing. The advent of the internet certainly allows that many artists are able to make a living without having any representation (or want) in the "Art World".

If you define Fine Art by representation you miss one thing:

The artists needed that representation for monetary reasons. They needed gallery owners and curators to accept their works so they would sell.

Now a good marketer can make just as much, if not more, money by selling to the masses directly.

This is where the "Art World" is heading. IMHO

In a practical sense, yes.

But there's important differences between the inside and the outside of the Art World. For example, painter Thomas Kinkade probably makes a lot of money, by massive volume of sales. However, he has zero credibility within the Art World. Compare with photographer Andreas Gursky, a fixture within the Art World, who can sell single prints at $2 million to $3 million each.

But money is money, right? Does it matter if the money comes from volume of sales, or through carefully orchestrated inflation of value and artificial scarcity? Well, one difference is that Kinkade is unlikely to be remembered 50 years from now, while Gursky will definitely be in all the art history books.

Roger Hicks

08-24-2008, 06:50

541920 - Photographic services

711510 - Independent artists, writers, & performers
Dear Fred,

Artistic control.

The IRS doesn't distinguish, as long as you are not working for hire, i.e. you are being told what to photograph. This can turn 541920 into 711510 faster than you can say, well, anything, really.

At least, that was my experience, though I have not had to file US taxes since 1992.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks

08-24-2008, 06:56

I disagree. The dialogue IS about what constitutes FINE ART. The OP may have asked several questions about business; but he says the magazine is about fine arts and the business of fine arts. So one should know what is meant by "fine art." Is "fine art" a euphemism for "what sells big time?" Maybe to some. But if you are going to use the word "art" then you should be prepared to hear that for some people, "fine art" goes beyond money. There's room for a lot of diversity in how people approach photography and "art."

Or isn't there?

Dear Rolly,

The answer to your last question is 'apparently not', to judge from some responses here.

I assume that you have read Tom Wolfe's 'The Painted Word'? It is central to this thread. Those who have not read it, should, if this is a subject which touches them at all.

Your response, and mine, do not appear to me to be irrelevant.

Cheers,

R.

35mmdelux

08-24-2008, 09:47

"art" is in the eye of the beholder, as is fine art.

For example, recently an "art work" of Jesus appeared in NYC which was made of feces. Some called it art, while others (including me) called it cr-p.

BTW -- amateurs can also deduct gear expenses if they use it in a side job. Being a "pro" has little to do with IRS deductions. What matters is the context the gear was used.

For example, I may make my living as a welder and I moonlight as a photog. The gear used in both of these jobs is therefore deductible because it was used to produce income.

People of means ($) are always advised by their CPA's to have a legalized side business to run these expenses through. Make sure you keep good records in case your called in to discuss.

Chris101

08-24-2008, 10:06

"art" is in the eye of the beholder, as is fine art.

For example, recently an "art work" of Jesus appeared in NYC which was made of feces. Some called it art, while others (including me) called it cr-p.
...The "I don't know art, but I know what I like" argument is not a good one for this type of discussion, as it serves to cut off individual opinions. There is a range of work that can be universally accepted as 'art'. One can decide if one likes a particular piece, but that does not kick it out of consideration as art.

Also picking a Serrano as the prime example is not fair, because that's more about the controversy. The surrounding controversy is the actual art piece, not the object itself.

rolly

08-24-2008, 10:33

The "Art is in the eye of the beholder" argument is interesting. Let's use the case of photography, rather than Art since we all care about photography. As a photographer, I have come to where I am in this pursuit, hobby, pasttime, work, whatever word you need to insert here, insert it-- I have come to it as both a learner, who appreciates the work of others, who has been influenced by other photographers, or even painters, or even just by walking around or growing up in the world that is my own little world. I am influenced. So in that sense of being a photographer, I am part of a larger milieu, or if I really have looked at a lot of other photography, I could even say I am part of a tradition, or a style of photography. I may even have heroes who give me the inspiration to rise up to that level of work. As a part of the overall world of photography, as a consumer of it, yes, art is what I behold to be art, based on how I havebeen influenced. If I have never seen a Winogrand photo, and one day I see a few of them and I like them very much, though I don;'t know why because up to now, my ideaof photography is landscape masterpieces, then how to explain what art is? Is it inside me, or is it outside. Or both?

On the other hand, after some time, I start to develop my own way, my own style, my own thing with photography. After a while I see my own shots have things in common. I start to see I shoot particular subjects, or when I am photographing, let's say the street turns me on and excites me, or portraiture or landscape or wildlife or sports or homelessness. I start to follow my own intuitions and instincts, and I also start working to make my technique better.

Again, when I look at many many of the photos on this site, I see there is a lot of aspiration to become better. There is a lot of care that goes into shooting. Even many of us who disavow ambition as far as commerce, or as far as giving a hoot if we are artists or monkeys-- there is this desire to learn, to do good work. There is, in other words, an interplay between being part of the tradition of photography and of doing our own thing.

I would say that it's more accurate to say Art is in the Work of the Beholder.

Roger Hicks

08-24-2008, 11:09

As noted in another post they require a schedule C for each separate code. You can give them as many as you want, but they are all supposed to be kept strictly separate. You cannot double dip of course, while you can share an office, you can't deduct it twice --- although I imagine many try. :rolleyes:

Dear Fred,

Sort of...

The IRS cheerfully accepted that the codes were not separable for a freelance working simultaneously as a photographer, journalist and writer (I discussed it with an auditor). BUT this is subject to two caveats: first, it was a long time ago, so the law may have changed, and second, I was not claiming anything against employee earnings in the United States -- because I was never an employee.

I think the IRS tends to conflate 'entrepreneur' and 'freelance'. Or at least, it did from 1987 to 1992. I'd add that despite their fearsome reputation and ridiculously excessive powers, I always found the IRS helpful, straightforward and honest. Even when they clearly did not care for my reading of the tax code, they would say coldly "We can read it no other way" in response to some of my more abstruse queries.

Cheers,

R.

mh2000

08-24-2008, 13:59

art is something you do inspite of the money, it is something that you are driven to do, a passion and a need... being recognized is nice, but the lack of recognition will not stop a true artist from creating... the muses provide both whips as well as kisses...

I have studied at the Art Inst. Chicago and shown in galleries enough to claim to be an "artist" ... inspite of having little income to show for it.

Regarding the IRS, you can claim to be anything you want and even carry your losses... you just don't get anything from them until you actually make money... so you can even be a "fine artist" in the eyes of the IRS with zero art income... but who cares?

hawkeye

08-24-2008, 14:40

Well I'm happy to see so much thought about art in this thread. I've been on both sides of the issue being both a commercial magazine photographer and a gallery owner at one point.

My original post was to get ideas about what directions I can offer the magazine I write for. Find a hook to tell the story. The focus was to be the business of selling prints. whether it is viable and what sort of experiences shooters have had.

As for the definition of fine art or even art I can only present my definition which means something to me but who knows what it will mean to anyone else.

I feel that art is the attempt we make to connect through some medium--painting, photos, music--to other people. And to do it without sentimentality and with authenticity. In photography it also means seeing new. I really like the photo of the clothes pin on the line because it makes me see an ordinary thing in a new way. Chris saw something we all see and had the skill and heart to show it a new way. It doesn't have to be a big idea but that shot helps to remind me to take pleasure in the everyday things of the world. Things that an artist shows us. Chris did that. That's art for me.

Now back to my magazine. I want to know what articles the magazine writers could pursue that would be helpful to photographers who might want to sell "art" or who sell art and need help to sell more.

By the way you all make this forum a treat.

Steve

Chriscrawfordphoto

08-24-2008, 15:21

art is something you do inspite of the money, it is something that you are driven to do, a passion and a need... being recognized is nice, but the lack of recognition will not stop a true artist from creating... the muses provide both whips as well as kisses...

That idea is what allows the parasites of the art world to profit while artists starve. I've heard it as justification for the way artists are treated in our society and in the art world and it is disgusting. Artists need to start thinking like the skilled tradesmen that they are and stop letting others profit from their hard work. Lack of recognition may not keep an artist from creating but lack of money will stop him cold. No money = no food. No food = you DIE. You cannot live on "air" as Fred said earlier that some artists supposedly do. You need food. Shelter. Medical care. Those cost money.

mh2000

08-24-2008, 15:32

regarding the connection of being a "fine artist" with representation or money making... Mr. van Gogh only sold 1 (maybe 2) paintings in his lifetime (late)... was he a fine artist before he sold a painting? Was he a fine artist after making a few meagre francs off his sale? Was he nothing until his paintings started selling in the millions?

In a sense, I believe being an artist is what you have in your heart. If you fiercely believe you are an artist and are actively working on your art, then you are an artist, period. You may be a very bad artist (there are way too many of these), but you are in fact an artist... and being an artist is nothing less than being a driven fool (and I mean that in the kindest manner).

mh2000

08-24-2008, 15:38

ok, if you can deduct personal artist expenses against teaching income... I didn't know you could do that (I'm not a teacher)... and I've only filed schedule C's 5 or 6 times for large art projects... and I had an accountant help me.

>>They want to deduct that loss against other work, such as teaching income.

mh2000

08-24-2008, 15:42

How many? 1 beholder other than yourself? 2? 1,000,000?

>>I repeat, fine art is in the eye of the beholder and in the context of its time.

35mmdelux

08-24-2008, 15:49

mh2000

08-24-2008, 15:54

well, if making money is your first priority, then you should pass on the art thing altogether... because most of the requirements for success in this field have little to do with artistic talent... and if you have these requirements, then you would be more successful using them in almost any other field of your choosing...

But big picture, why does anyone *deserve* anything? We are all born into the world the way it is... being an artist in our society is the reality that we have... if anyone doesn't like it, tough. Sure, I wish I came out of art school and just started being supported... so do alcoholics...

>>That idea is what allows the parasites of the art world to profit while artists starve. I've heard it as justification for the way artists are treated in our society and in the art world and it is disgusting. Artists need to start thinking like the skilled tradesmen that they are and stop letting others profit from their hard work. Lack of recognition may not keep an artist from creating but lack of money will stop him cold.

mh2000

08-24-2008, 16:52

>>I have never heard him referred to as "Mr. van Gogh,"

Until we established if he was in fact a "fine artist," I thought I would give him the dignity of being formally addressed

:)

>>Yep that about sums up my position - if you say you are, you are.

I have spent too much of my life in art... and don't strike artists off the "list" just because they are not in a gallery... there have also been plenty of artists that I thought were nothing, but they could keep getting their work into galleries because they were such social wizards (hats off to them!)... everyone is who they are.

If you say you are an artist, I'll take you at your word... and silently put you into my "good artist" and "bad artist" lists.

:)

Ray Nalley

08-24-2008, 17:06

I show photos in galleries and sale some. But I have never considered myself an artist. A good technician perhaps, but certainly not an artist. Can't even figure out what the word means and don't want to be tagged with that label anyway.

My standard line at opening parties is, "While you are standing in an art gallery, my stuff on the walls was not produced by an artist."

mh2000

08-24-2008, 17:37

Ray, photography covers a wide spectrum of purposes... people often lose track of that.

Roger Hicks

08-24-2008, 22:05

[The IRS] don't care at all UNTIL you are audited.
Dear Fred,

Well, it was an auditor who advised me that book-writing, journalism and photography could be treated as inseparable in the circumstances described, so with due respext, I think I'll take his word over yours.

But to return to the gallery/parasite/BS aspect of fine art, a friend of mine who exhibited extensively in London in the 60s and 70s made unrepeatable allegations about the sexual proclivities of some gallery owners, and the exploitation thereof to get exhibitions (he preferred to exhibit in other galleries).

Another artist friend, currently exhibiting from time to time in various cities in Europe, first introduced me to the theories (truths?) mentioned by Loren Bliss concerning abstract expressionism.

And as I said in an earlier post, Tom Wolfe's The Painted Word is essential reading for anyone interested in Fine Art.

Cheers,

R.

MickH

08-25-2008, 05:37

I have read this thread with great interest, learning something of the US tax system along the way - one of the reasons I love t'internet so much is that one can pick up all sorts of incidental information.

Contributions have been made by artists, artisans, teachers and philistines. Several folk have attempted to define "art" but I still struggle with the differentiation between "art" and "fine art". I agree with the sentiment that if someone calls themselves an artist, then that is what they are and what they produce is art. Whether anyone else likes it, or it has a monetary value is beside the point.

I knowthat unversity courses in "fine art" exist, maybe some of you teach, or are students of these. Are there courses in "vanilla" art? I doubt it very much. Googling doesn't help me with a definition, so I am left to my own devices. It seems to me that "fine art" is a relatively recent label used to elevate some work above other art for either commercial or pretentious reasons: "I am (or my client is) a fine artist." Is it really that simple?

I am genuinely puzzled.

Thanks,

Mick

hawkeye

08-25-2008, 07:37

funny that this thread as moved into a discussion of "fine arts" photography. I was just at an editorial meeting for the magazine I'm gathering this material for and the odd thing is that this is the same discussion all artists have.

Painters, sculptors etc. all talk about exactly what all of you are speaking of.
Only a rare few live off their art. Most supplement their income with teaching gigs and with workshops.

For me the issue really revolves around the marketplace. There is no tradition of buying art in most cultures. I don't believe it has ever been different. during the Renaissance there were lots of artists with big commissions and a lot of assistants who did the work and couldn't sell their work.

In America we have no tradition of buying art in the middle class. In the 70s the fine art photo market took off because folks like Sam Wigman and Stephen Stills got into buying photos. But that wasn't the common folk.

I think Roger will agree that its even harder in some countries then others. Often location is an issue. Art in France is centered in Paris and if you don't sell there forget it.

This isn't an answer to anyone's frustration. But did anyone see a hot market for the sale of fine art photos that was just dying to have you participate?

Steve aka Hawkeye

Roger Hicks

08-25-2008, 08:33

Sometime Roger you disagree when there is no disagreement...
Dear Fred,

I would not have said I was arguing, just struggling for clarity -- at which poind I'll repeat that it wasn't my accountant giving this advice, it was an IRS auditor.

Americans may find it hard to believe, but their tax code is for the most part admirably clear, and the IRS really will try to help clarify questions if you ask them in advance, instead of leaving it to the last minute, then trusting to hope and something you read on the internet.

In fact, I found it more advantageous to act as my own accountant, simply because I could read the tax codes and ask questions on my own behalf. A 'tax preparer' (as distinct from a proper, expensive accountant) would probably not have been anything like as advantageous.

You obviously know this already; it's just that like you, I'm trying to clarify matters for those who don't.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks

08-25-2008, 08:35

Art in France is centered in Paris and if you don't sell there forget it.

Dear Steve,

I don't think you're 100% right.

Just 99.99%. Or possibly 99.999%.

Cheers,

Roger

Chriscrawfordphoto

08-25-2008, 08:40

I knowthat unversity courses in "fine art" exist, maybe some of you teach, or are students of these. Are there courses in "vanilla" art? I doubt it very much. Googling doesn't help me with a definition, so I am left to my own devices. It seems to me that "fine art" is a relatively recent label used to elevate some work above other art for either commercial or pretentious reasons: "I am (or my client is) a fine artist." Is it really that simple?

I am genuinely puzzled.

Thanks,

Mick

Universities teach two kinds of art. Fine art and commercial art (also known as graphic design or visual communications).

Commercial art is art that is done for clients who use the art for a commercial purpose. This encompasses a wide variety of things including product illustrations, advertisements, brochures, websites, logos, illustrations for books, etc. Commercial artists usually do not produce work until a client comes along and asks for it. Sometimes the artist is given wide discretion to be creative, other times he/she is given very narrow instructions and is little more than a technician executing someone else's idea. The pay is often very good. Some are self emlpoyed, others work for ad agencies or the marketing departments of businesses, schools, governments, etc.

Fine art is done for personal expression and the artist can do anything he/she wants but may not make money off of it if it isn't something someone will pay money for. Most have jobs teaching art, doing commercial art, or they make money some way unrelated to art.

Roger Hicks

08-25-2008, 08:48

Universities teach two kinds of art. Fine art and commercial art (also known as graphic design or visual communications).

Dear Chris,

And the two are not always that clearly differentiated. When I applied to art school in the late 60s, Coventry offered me a place (at the interview) for a BA in Applied Art (Photography). When I said I was looking for a fine art degree, they shrugged and said, "Fine, BA Fine Art, then."

So I read law instead...

And when my first wife was at St Martins and Central in the mid-60s -- one of the most highly regarded schools in the UK -- she got a Dip. A.D., Diploma of Art and Design. When she was offered the opportunity to have this re-recognized as a BA in the 70s, she turned it down indignantly. Her view was (and is) that a Dip AD is an honourable qualification in its own right and to pretend that it's an academic degree is ridiculous. Pretending you can qualify as a fine artist is, in her view, even sillier.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger Hicks

08-25-2008, 08:55

Well now I see, the concept of an IRS auditor giving advice makes me very nervous, since by the time any return has raised enough of a red flag, to get an auditor interested, you are in for "fun," I would pretty much take any "advice" they hand out.

You normally end up sitting there with your CPA (and sometimes lawyer :eek:) across the table form an auditor, or the auditor is at your home seeing if there are really areas set aside, looking through every document. You are the person who has ever said their experience during an IRS audit was pleasant. To charm an IRS auditor, must have been the accent? :p

I do agree that the regular people at the IRS taxpayer assistance, both on the phone, and at offices are very nice, and in fact the IRS has made a real effort to make that contract better for taxpayers -- and of course not freighting like auditors.

The good news is there are very few IRS auditors, and most of us will never talk to one, since they call you, you don't call them. :angel:

Dear Fred,

No, I was asking hard questions, based on a close reading of the tax code, so they dug out an auditor to answer them. This may be why I was never audited: whenever there was a question the front-desk people couldn't answer, they'd dig him out. In fact, he and I became quite good friends, and remain so; we exchange Christmas cards, and when he was in France a few years ago he stopped by for lunch.

Then again, bear in mind that I have a law degree, and studied accountancy for long enough to have some idea of how it works, though I quit because I couldn't take the excitement.

Cheers,

Roger

hawkeye

08-25-2008, 08:56

Roger

Wow. 99.999% right is as close to 100% as I've ever gotten.

For me the irony is the life of an artist after death. Have you been to Giverny? Monet was radical when his work first appeared. Today the gift shop sells umbrellas, posters and place mats etc. emblazoned with his work.

Here's a tale. In the 1970s Ansel Adams sold his images to Folger's coffee to use to decorate coffee cans. After the Adams cans came out, Imogene Cunningham brought him an empty can that she had planted with several marijuana plants.

Steve

Roger Hicks

08-25-2008, 09:05

For me the irony is the life of an artist after death. Have you been to Giverny? Monet was radical when his work first appeared. Today the gift shop sells umbrellas, posters and place mats etc. emblazoned with his work.

Dear Steve,

No, but I've spent a lot of time in Arles: an exact parallel!

Love the Folgers story. "Tea or, uhhhh, coffee?"

Cheers,

R.

gns

08-25-2008, 09:19

I don't bother myself much with whether or not something can be called art.
To me, some pictures are interesting (creatively/intelligently made) and some are not. Regardless of the maker's intentions (which we can't really know anyway).

We all know that there are plenty of pictures intended to be art, which stink. And many pictures never intended as art which are wonderful.

Cheers,
Gary

ruben

08-25-2008, 10:27

...........

If you sell prints through galleries and such can you give me an idea of what your experience is like. What the market for print sales like? Can you live off of sales? What sort of problems have you encountered?

...................
Thanks,

Steve Meltzer

Hi Steve,

I can only contribute to your query with three possible, although somewhat silly venues.

a) Look for galleries that display/ed photographs.

b) Look at the latests issues of "Vogue" magazine and try to track the best photographers.

c) Until two weeks ago we had a member at RFF, signing as nikonhswebmaster, whose personal name is Fred, who told us time and again that he has uncountable gallery displays in NY, his sales put him in contact with many of the top 500 Forbes CEOs, and that he is an artist.

Use the RFF "search" engine and try to put his name.

Hope to have been of help,
Ruben

Chris101

08-25-2008, 13:09

... In America we have no tradition of buying art in the middle class. In the 70s the fine art photo market took off because folks like Sam Wigman and Stephen Stills got into buying photos. But that wasn't the common folk. ...Do you mean Sam Wagstaff? Much of the museum and private interest in modern photography can be linked to him.

Chris101

08-25-2008, 13:16

... And the two are not always that clearly differentiated. ...Case in point Chris - your image (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=880894#post880894) from the first page of this thread of the bottle of 'plumpatrin' - identified as commercial art, but isn't it really social commentary disguised as a product shot. The product doesn't actually exist, and so doesn't that fit the requirement of modern art?

MickH

08-25-2008, 14:26

@Chris & Fred...

Thanks very much for the explanations. Nice and clear now.

It is interesting that studying, becoming proficient in and then practicing a "graphic" discipline is considered artistry, whereas the same thing in (say) law, medicine or business is different. Semantics I guess. I do now understand that what is called "fine art" can also be referred to as "art for arts sake", I perhaps mistakenly imagined that "fine art" had something to do with the quality of it's execution eg. a shark in formaldehide is "art" but The Fighting Temeraire is "fine art".

Thanks again.

Roger Hicks

08-26-2008, 00:14

Boy that is closer to my taxes than I would ever want to get, I am going to stick with my accountant... but still an amazing story, only you could have done it me thinks. :cool:

Dear Fred,

It saved me, I think, a LOT of money. Here is my favourite example (I do not know if this is still the law, but it was then).

If you are overseas on legitimate business, you can set against taxes either your actual expenses or a per-diem rate corresponding to that paid by Uncle Sam to senior government employees, and the IRS cannot go behind that per diem to check your actual expenses.

As the per diem is high for one person, and very high for two, especially (for example) in Moscow, I chose that route, after first checking that this was legitimate. This was the one where they said coldly, "We can read it no other way."

Likewise my wife saved a lot of time by taking no deductions, but relying on the foreign earned income exclusion for American citizens living overseas. If all you enter on your 1040 and Schedule C is gross income, it saves a good deal of time in filling in forms.

As for law, bear in mind that courtroom oratory is a very small or non-existent part of most lawyers' day-to-day life, so a legal education is all too easily biased towards the uncreative side. My favourite (and most successful) subjects were legal history and jurisprudence; my worst, contract. I'm pissed off to this day that I missed an upper second by four marks on my final contract paper. Then again, they say a lower second is a gentleman's degree: not too much of a swot, but not stupid either.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger Hicks

08-26-2008, 14:29

Still true, and sometimes a saving (if you backpack like me). It is basically like taking a standard deduction.

This publication is for employers who pay a per diem allowance to employees for business travel away from home within the continental United States (CONUS) (the 48 contiguous states), on or after October 1, 2006, and before January 1, 2009. It gives the maximum per diem rate you can use without treating part of the per diem allowance as wages for tax purposes. For a detailed discussion on the tax treatment of a per diem allowance, see chapter 11 of Publication 535, Business Expenses, or Revenue Procedure 2007-63, 2007-42 I.R.B. You can find the revenue procedure in the weekly Internal Revenue Bulletin (IRB) on the Internet at www.irs.gov/irb.

This applies if you are self employed, but is in constant flux.
Dear Fred,

Good news. Thanks.

Cheers,

R.

FallisPhoto

09-04-2008, 05:18

Does 'Fine Art Photography' actually exist?

If so, how does it differ from 'good pictures'?

Sorry to be so populist. It's a question I've addressed a couple of times in my columns in AP magazine in the UK, and also on the site in

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps%20art.html

If there are any ideas there that are useful, and you want to steal them, the fee is a cross-link to the site...

Cheers,

R.

Pictures are taken. Art is created.

FallisPhoto

09-04-2008, 05:24

I am sure he would have wished for the good fortune of "uncountable gallery displays" whomever he might be, but it is VERY unlikely! :D

Oh, I've had that. I've been in a few, but some were a while back, I'm not sure whether to count some of them, and I never counted them up in the first place anyway.

sjw617

09-04-2008, 16:40

Pictures are taken. Art is created.

Are you saying that photography is not art and never capable of being art?

Steve

FallisPhoto

09-04-2008, 16:58

Are you saying that photography is not art and never capable of being art?

Steve

NO! That is absolutely NOT what I am saying! I am saying that art -- any kind of art -- contains an element of creativity. This includes fine art photography. Fine art photography and documentary photography are two different things. Incidentally, I believe I was loosely quoting Ansel Adams.

John Rountree

09-04-2008, 17:44

First, Roger is spot on to suggest that everyone in this thread read The Painted Word, if you are not already familiar with it. Also, anyone who decides on their own to call themselves an artist, most likely isn't.

John Rountree

09-04-2008, 18:16

As was said earlier, about art coming from the heart. I show my work in galleries about once a year, sometimes two or three. I usually sell two or three prints from a show. I take photographs for myself. If someone likes one enough to buy it I am flattered, but that is not my motivation. I have had several shows where I have sold nothing. That does not discourage me from continuing to make new images. If my work is considered art that is someone else's decision, not mine. I see myself as a photographer. For something to be art, IMO, it has to move us forward in our understanding and/or appreciation for the subject. If that is what is does for someone then it can be considered art. But when I take the picture I am merely expressing what I see and feel at the moment. I am not moving forward in my understanding, I am already there or I would not have seen the image in the first place. Or, I run the risk of contrivance if I am too calculating with my photos. So if my work reveals something that moves you, YOU can call me an artist, but for me to label myself is just a conceit.

ruben

09-04-2008, 18:21

Just for the record, it seems to me that Wikipedia limits the number of disciplines recocnized as Fine Arts, to a certain list. But Art, true Art can exist both as part of the list and outside.

A second division it seems to me we should be aware of, relates to who is an Artist. Being "an Artist" today is a coin very much devaluated within a massive number of self declared folks in need to sustain themeselves, some to raise their high profits, and others regarding being an artist as being a dentist.

The problem is to distinguish between the deep talented ones and the commercial drived creators advertizing themselves and producing weird but shallow things.

On top of all these I believe many real artists don't survive the need to sell enough to sustain themseves and/or their families, without compromising their creativeness or leaving it at once.

Art is not only in the eye of the beholder but first of all in the eye and mind of the artist. To be a real artist requires not just talent and inspiration but an original approach to life, to yourself, and extreme forces for survival and renewal.

Only those sincerely touching their own mind will have the potential to touch other minds.

Talented commercial mercenaries will never cease to exist.

Cheers,
Ruben

retnull

09-04-2008, 19:38

The problem is to distinguish between the deep talented ones and the commercial drived creators advertizing themselves and producing weird but shallow things.

Agreed, Ruben. But sometimes it's a bit tricky. It is not always clear who is who and what is what. Several times I have come across artwork that looks to me like nothing -- like nothing that is meaningful, nothing that fits my definition of art. Later I found out I was wrong -- it was my knowledge and vision that was lacking, not the artwork. Never underestimate how big (and therefore how unknowable) Art can be....

gns

09-05-2008, 05:51

gns

09-05-2008, 06:14

I just did a google search on fine art photography. I'm still not exactly sure what it is,
but I can report that a surprisingly large portion of it seems to come from Utah.

Cheers,
Gary

JohnTF

09-05-2008, 06:41

I write for a magazine about business for visual arts here in the States. They want to devote an issue or a large part of an issue to "fine art" photography. So I'm looking for some ideas for everyone so that I'm not just "opinionating."

If you sell prints through galleries and such can you give me an idea of what your experience is like. What the market for print sales like? Can you live off of sales? What sort of problems have you encountered?

I'd appreciate any views and if I want to quote you will get back to you for permission and will credit the writer.

Thanks,

Steve Meltzer

I am not completely through the thread, but see what people mean by their comments on the potential for drift.

Have you looked at the Catalogues of various museums? Might be a place to see what they think is art, and perhaps further research may give you an idea of which of them are successful in the business sense. I have the Catalogue of the Cleveland Museum of Art, and while they exhibit few photographs, their collection fills a rather large book.

Your questions bring into play ideas that may be in conflict, that of demand of the market, commercial intentions, the intention of producing a technically acceptable image that may be art, and finally artists working only to express themselves in some meaningful way with no restrictions. I do not believe these to be entirely mutually exclusive nor exhaustive.

Which leads to the answer that there may be no specific answer, but rather a set of possibilities, some of which are rather well stated through the thread.

I make some photographs for publication, illustration, or event reportage, but I also look for the right juxtaposition of event and presence to make a good image.

Photography can be seen as a "found" art and the tools to capture it may be manipulated in some skillful and difficult manner, or not. Adams made some photographs quickly, and others very slowly with great developing intent. Time is seen sometimes as an inticator of art in terms of intent and rarity.

Technology also allows anyone who can trip a shutter to perhaps find images, which if entirely accidental, some would say they cannot be art at all.

I have made the acquaintance of several people who seem to "find" more art than others, and have yet to understand why it is they seem to have an ability to do so.

I have also found that while some images seem to be universally appealing, and therefore perhaps possess more potential for immediate business success, in general, photography often is seen by the populace as a craft, and as you can just "run off" prints mechanically, to be of less worth, both as art and commercially. All of it perhaps potentially a calendar to be posted on the fridge?

Which brings in the concept of rarity and cash value in acquiring prints. It does seem that the demise of the artist raises the cash value of his work. I recall some of the prominent photographers going through a phase of destroying negatives once a series was printed. It does seem often you can only begin to make a substantial living on fine art if you are dead.

And if people cannot agree that, for example, all art in and art museum is art, I would not look for consensus in photography soon.

I will say that when I viewed several hundred HCB prints in Paris, I came away feeling much of them were art, but am not sure HCB would have agreed.

It certainly is a set of questions that raise more questions.

A few more worms in the can?

Regards, John

Roger Hicks

09-05-2008, 07:12

This thread is verging on the surreal.

"The Painted Word"? Really? I really like Tom Wolfe, but I don't remember that standing out as one of his best works (it's been probably 30 years since I read it, though).

Cheers,
Gary

Dear Gary,

It's not so much a question of whether its among his best work from a pyrotechnic viewpoint (e.g. Kandy Kolored Tangerine Flake Streamline Baby) as a question of its being the best extended essay ever on Artspeak.

Cheers,

Roger

gns

09-05-2008, 07:38

Roger,

I will look for a copy to (re)read. If I remember, it is a pretty thin volume. Surely there must be some other good reads (satirical or otherwise) on the state of the art world in the last century. Anybody?

BTW. My "Surreal" comment was not about your book recommendation. More a reference to the odd juxtaposition of the tax code and "What is art" discussions.

Cheers,
Gary

John Rountree

09-05-2008, 08:10

Could an essay on Artspeak written a third of a century ago have any relevance today?

Obviously some people believe it can be relevant today or it would not have been recommended as a part of this thread. If you have read it, you may disagree. The fact that we all didn't pop out of the same mold is what makes the world go around.

MickH

09-05-2008, 09:03

Could an essay on Artspeak written a third of a century ago have any relevance today?

Dunno about relevance, bit If I interpret Roger's coining "Artspeak" correctly then it could prove interesting as a then vs. now bullsh1t comparison. TBH there is more cack talked about art than almost anything else with the exception of carp fishing.

I AM NOT TROLLING against anything posted here in what is an interesting thread written by grounded human beings, but when one listens to some of the complete hooey spoken by so-called art afficianodos in the media one realises how incestuous the "art world" can be. Sadly, this is the side most of us see.

jan normandale

09-05-2008, 09:56

Dunno about relevance, bit If I interpret Roger's coining "Artspeak" correctly then it could prove interesting as a then vs. now bullsh1t comparison. TBH there is more cack talked about art than almost anything else with the exception of carp fishing.

Okay Mick, the gloves are off! You want to trash talk coarse fishing? I'm going to report this to the NFA (http://www.nfadirect.com/default.asp?section=00010001) in Britain then you'll see what serious hobbists are all about!
j/k

On a more serious note. This thread is my "thread of the month" it's like there are two separate worlds at the table, tax consultants and philosophers. The line up in this thread is definitely qualified and it's first rate. It doesn't get better than this!

MickH

09-05-2008, 12:33

Fred, of course you are correct. Most of us get our arts from the telly or tabloids and I s'pose they give a very one sided view... "How much for that picture/installation/sculpture/etc. etc. that my kid could've turned out?!!" It's a bit shrill I agree.

I was actually sniping more at the cosy type of critic who preaches to the converted and excludes those "not in the know"... OK I'll name my chief suspect: Brian Sewell. He is the most famous of the bunch but is typical of a particular breed. He seems to treat art as his personal domain and if it needs to be explained, then you simply don't and will never understand it. He is a caricature, maybe he's parodying the whole thing & I'm too dumb to see it, I dunno.

Others: Andrew Graham Dixon, Waldemaer Januszczak and Andrew Collings to mention three are obviously passionate and like to spread the word and educate us proles. These are the good guys in my book.

Jan, I'm with you mate, this is one of the best threads going right now. And, off topic (maybe we should start up a fishing thread?) I simply meant that there is so much rubbish talked about secret methods etc etc that it makes no sense to anyone other than afficionados (hem-hem).;)

rolly

09-05-2008, 13:42

Jan said,

On a more serious note. This thread is my "thread of the month" it's like there are two separate worlds at the table, tax consultants and philosophers. The line up in this thread is definitely qualified and it's first rate. It doesn't get better than this!
__________________

I agree, as well that this is a very interesting and animated discussion. I was asking myself why-- how could taxes and aesthetics possibly mix and be interesting, even stimulating?

I wonder if it is because we are trying to see if there is some standard outside of our subjectivity which makes us feel this is that definition is truer? As this thread has gone along, I note that it swings like a big river from the high-toned to the tax code, from the tax code to experiences of our own with taxes and with galleries and with selling work, and then it swings again towards loftier considerations.

So then I started reflecting on my own pictures. Ruben was saying that Wikipedia has a list of the Fine Arts, and then he made the statement that true art might or might not be part of that list-- again, that notion that there is some kind of standard or some kind of True Aspiration that goes on. When I go shooting, I love to just shoot, to get into a rhythm, to get "lost" in that rhythm. I love to just see. This is why for me it is often very enjoyable to shoot with another photographer, who also gets it, that wonderful activity part, rather than sightseeing with my wife and forcing her to wait for me or me for her, etc etc.

So there is the act of photographing. Then there is evaluating. I am happiest when I just KNOW the picture I am taking or just took is going to be a good one. I am often puzzled at how I know, and how often the prints prove me right. And then there are the surprises-- wow, I forgot I took that one. That really came out good! As if someone else took the shot! There are also the ones that are probably going to be good, but I know I'll be doing some work on the print. Work in the sense that I didn't quite nail it, but it's good. It's going to be good enough. And of course most of what I shoot is dross. But, I am learning something from the duds, and you could say the errors, mistakes, grab shots, the hurried shots, the tourist shots, all the clunkers nevertheless are part of the path to those moments of knowing the shot was a winner or those surprises when it was as if another person shot that...

Isn't this sort of involvement in our own unique individual way, part of what art is, and what being an artist is? To raise our own inner bar by both practice and study-- in other words, Ruben's idea of "True Art?" Or is this too subjective?

rolly

09-05-2008, 13:46

sorry, typo in one of the lines.

our subjectivity which makes us feel this is that definition is truer?

should read

our subjectivity which makes us feel this OR that definition is truer?

JohnTF

09-05-2008, 22:16

So there is the act of photographing. Then there is evaluating. I am happiest when I just KNOW the picture I am taking or just took is going to be a good one. I am often puzzled at how I know, and how often the prints prove me right.

I was thinking of the same thing, that sometimes you are looking through the viewfinder and you just know it is a shot you have been looking for. Some days it happens several times, but in unrelated settings, and it is a PITA that you cannot make it happen, the situation takes on a life of its own.

Then the humbling days when you know you were just going through the motions. Many more humble days than proud ones?

Then the shots that never happened because you did not have a proper camera or lens with you.

Now, back to carp fishing, the woman in my Normandy shot raved about Christmas Carp in Brno, and made sure I ate some, as I had laughed at someone actually buying carp for the table. Now if she did my taxes I could tie it all up in to a unified theory?

Regards, John

Roger Hicks

09-06-2008, 00:18

jan normandale

09-06-2008, 08:29

...... I could tie it all up in to a unified theory?

Regards, John

Jeez John, we're having enough fun and difficulty trying to agree on what "Art" is. Now you want a "unified theory (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html)" ... that's just adding another layer of difficulty

JohnTF

09-06-2008, 09:24

Jeez John, we're having enough fun and difficulty trying to agree on what "Art" is. Now you want a "unified theory (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html)" ... that's just adding another layer of difficulty

I really think you are up to it now. ;-)

Regards, John

JohnTF

09-06-2008, 09:57

Surely the point about fine art and taxes is that the IRS is at least as good an external validator of 'Fine Art' as Brian Sewell.

It's like the misuse of the word 'professional', as in 'professional camera', or using the word 'amateur' as a synonym for 'incompetent'.

Whether you get paid or not -- and whether you are accepted by the contemporary Art Establishment or not -- is substantially irrelevant. The creation of art and the general recognition of the artist's ability are separate phenomena, which may be contemporaneous or separated by decades.

That's quite apart from fashion. Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema was the darling of his age. When I first saw his work in the 1960s, maybe 80 years later, he was completely out of fashion. Now he's in again.

Cheers,

R. (Mutt)

Amateur really should be someone who is doing it for the love of it, which probably means most artists, as we seem to agree fine work rarely pays the light bills. Probably the word professional is equally misused as well, and then the contemporary "Mode" or fashion is indeed a fickel beast.

You can easily fall in to the "I know it when I see it" definition, which may not be a definition at all, but perhaps some things are not meant to be tightly defined. Certainly my tax preparing friend finds questions the IRS cannot answer.

No matter how serious we wish it to be, aesthetics is not going to be tightly defined.

You may end up with "working" definitions, for the duration of a discussion.
The IRS has their share of those.

Or perhaps you can go to Olympic style judging, giving a 10 for composition, 9 for exposure, 8 for subject choice, 7 for some merit, and 6 for execution, etc. until you can reach a combined score that sends it to art. I would appoint you Roger, for your broad interests and well grounded background, plus you are a Brit married to an American living in France, so you must have dealt with some confusion at one time or another. Am jealous BTW.

I do not really think it can be broken down so far, but are there characteristics just as those of a sound wine that can be examined as a matter of course?

My good friend Alain in Ville Juif seems to have similar taste in wine to those who know, and I just include myself, not because of expertise, but I very often agree with his wine tastes. Perhaps he knows more of the reasons why he likes a particular wine?

When I see an image I like, I have an overall impression, and the specifics come later. Their effect may be working on me before I am aware of what they are. Sometimes I try to separate what I like from what I think is good, but that also takes more time.

When I was with a newspaper, I attended a concert and noted our critic leaving to beat deadline. He gave a tepid review, and I told him I was at the same concert, and he told me he did not like his seat.

Now I can understand his feelings, I cannot understand how freely he shared them. And, yes, he was the professional voice.

Please, have a Rose with this post, do not think it is ready for Red.

Regards, John

MickH

09-06-2008, 10:46

I thought it looked quite artistic.

rolly

09-06-2008, 11:11

Roger Hicks

09-06-2008, 11:30

MickH

09-06-2008, 11:33

Click & drag your cursor over the text. It highlights it & makes it visible.

Roger Hicks

09-06-2008, 11:44

Probably they are just channeling the same group that liked him the first time around. You have to admit his work is highly amusing.

It is so awful, its kind of good, in a perverse sort of day-glow paint on velvet kind of way.
Dear Fred,

The Heroic stuff is indeed a bit Elvis-on-velvet but when it comes to lovingly rendered and scantily clad teenagers in Roman baths, he could teach Jock Sturgess and David Hamilton a thing or two.

Or at least, so I recall. I've not seen much of his work in decades.

And it's better than the bloody Monarch of the Glen!

(For that matter, it's better than quite a lot of Dante Gabriel Rosetti and his chums. I used to live in Birchington, where D.G.R. is buried and there is a stained glass window in his memory.)

Cheers,

R.

MickH

09-06-2008, 11:44

It is a pain. Oddly when I change the skin to a dark background the text colour of my input and that of all posts changes to a visible colour obviously designed to avoid black text on a black background.

Probably less a bug, more an oversight, but a pain in the bum no less.

MickH

09-06-2008, 11:51

Dear Fred,

The Heroic stuff is indeed a bit Elvis-on-velvet but when it comes to lovingly rendered and scantily clad teenagers in Roman baths, he could teach Jock Sturgess and David Hamilton a thing or two.

I have to admit that "Silver Favourites" has always been one of mine.

A bit of a guilty pleasure really, I quite like the pre-raffs that I have seen.

Roger Hicks

09-06-2008, 11:57

Click & drag your cursor over the text. It highlights it & makes it visible.

Dear Mick,

Of course! So obvious as soon as you say it!

But I'd never thought of it. Thanks.

Cheers,

R.

jan normandale

09-06-2008, 20:26

Dear Mick,

Of course! So obvious as soon as you say it!

But I'd never thought of it. Thanks.

Cheers,

R.

You film guys... ;D

wlewisiii

09-06-2008, 20:49

Shrug. I take artsy-fartsy pictures. On rare occasion someone else likes them. On even rarer occasion, they actually like it enough to want a print. Someday I'll find someone willing to actually _PAY_ for a print.

But I'm still an artist... :angel:

William

JohnTF

09-06-2008, 21:15

Sadly John, since you keep choosing a font color-- here is what your posts look like to many of us who chose a white background. The ability to choose a font color is a BUG in vBulletin, and does not work properly with choosing skins.

I am sorry for the inconvenience, I was actually working in my office and my laptop on battery does not show the gray on black which I get as the default, and I was nebulous enough without typing blindly on a smaller than standard keyboard. I will try to edit, but it may lead to disappointment rather than enlightenment.

I changed the font colors to something close to the original? Is the problem in certain colors, or just choosing any color?

Thanks for the heads up.

Regards, John

JohnTF

09-06-2008, 21:29

John, above, says "sometimes you are looking through the viewfinder and you just know it is a shot you have been looking for."

Would an interesting project for this group of Philosophers and Tax men be to post a picture that is an example of what John said? A picture where what you saw the moment you shot it turned out to be what you were looking for in the way of a photograph?

Another way of saying it: One of my favorite American poets was William Stafford. Bill was an avid photographer as well. He used to say that the reason you write a poem is NOT because you know what to say. It's because when you are really writing a poem, you discover what you to say.

To me this applies so well to photographing, and maybe it would be fun to have a run at taking the thread back to pictures?

PS-- I would post something here but, I'm embarrassed to say I don't know how to get a picture from my computer into this thread and if anyone would kindly demystify that process I'd be much beholding.

Enjoyed your earlier post in this thread, well thought out, and I share your uploading lack of expertise, I think I did an elaborate work around in a couple of stages, but will leave it to those who actually know the right way to answer that.

There are several examples in my photos uploaded to gallery, though, again not uploaded with much technical talent.

Also, I may not have digital images, nor a large scanner, I borrowed a friend's epson, and the two of us spent four hours scanning half a dozen 11x14 prints to very large files, lots of work arounds that day.

Strangely, I saw a recent photo posted of a church with red doors, and was thinking of it today as I drove home from downtown, and spotted four interesting buildings in the afternoon light, and three interesting churches all with red doors facing the afternoon sun. M8 is in repair, will have to begin to keep something M mount in the car.

For some reason, I just do not find much in town, I know people who do, but perhaps my mind is elsewhere when I am in town?

Regards, John

Roger Hicks

09-07-2008, 00:46

You film guys... ;D
Dear Jan,

Be fair: when I started using computers, they didn't HAVE colour. The first word processor I used was an ICL dual 2903 mainframe, which as far as I recall was three million pounds. That was in the office, not at home, and it was also used for other things...

Cheers,

R.

jan normandale

09-07-2008, 07:23

hawkeye

09-07-2008, 07:37

Okay, here's the deal. When I originally posted this thread one of the things I tried very hard to avoid was defining "Fine Art Photography." The core of the question, I believe, was not to find out what peole thought was fine art photography but rather were there forum members who could make a living selling photographic prints through galleries, agents etc...

I shoot commercially. I can call myself a "professional" photographer and writer because I make ALL my income through the sale of my articles and images. I shoot on demand. I shoot or write whatever a client asks for. That I am successful at it may be pure chance, the result of the quality of my work or the fact that there is no one else in the general area I live in, in a far corner of the US, with as many cameras and lenses and lights.

In the same sense when I use the term "fine art photographer" I think I am speaking of those photographers who make all or most of their living selling prints.

The thread has devolved a bit into a discussion of the quality of work, about the point at which a photograph becomes art and whether even selling one's work somehow diminishes it as art. Rather make those judgments I was trying to get a sense of what it was out in the world to try to live my selling prints--usually the matted and framed type.

Fine art photography for me is in the same niche as the fine arts themselves. The word "fine" is used I think to differentiate some art from I guesswhat would be the 'coarse' arts. Or to put it another way the edgy arts. The cutting edge stuff.

Personally--and not relevant to what I'm looking for--my feeling is that "fine arts" is a descriptor for "cleaned up" art. It is I believe a bourgeois concept. A way to re-fine an art to make it palaple to the mass of people.

Most arts go through this. Jazz was once degenerate music and now its in every elevator in the world. The other day at my local supermarket the background music was the Police singing "Every Breath You Take" followed by Dylan's "Masters of War." Time and familiarity has I guess soften and re-fined them. But ah, the irony.

Steve

Roger Hicks

09-07-2008, 11:14

Fine art photography for me is in the same niche as the fine arts themselves. The word "fine" is used I think to differentiate some art from I guesswhat would be the 'coarse' arts. Or to put it another way the edgy arts. The cutting edge stuff.

Steve

Dear Steve,

Sorry, which is 'fine' and which is 'coarse'?

And what is 'cutting edge'?

A lot of good, new art is 'cutting edge', 'edgy' or even 'unpopular': cf Whistler's 'The Falling Rocket: Nocturne in Black and Gold'.

All too many people therefore subscribe to the classic logical fallacy of the omitted middle: anything that is unpopular is therefore good. There can be good, old-fashioned or traditional art, and good, new ideas (Duchamps, Oldenberg) to say nothing of over-intellectualized or over-pseudo-intellectualized modern art (Riley, Warhol). And plenty of bad art of all categories.

I sometimes need a run-up to appreciate an artist (in another field entirely, Ligeti; in photography, Parr; in painting, Hockney) but equally there are some where I suspect that I am never going to 'get it' and that in a few years time, no-one else will either: they are a product of 'the painted word'.

Cheers,

R.

rolly

09-07-2008, 11:58

If the attachment below isn't working someone please let me know.

This shot was the result of a surprise. For a few months in spring and summer I was intrigued by the light falling into an alley way off a big street. I had tried maybe ten different times to make a photo turn out the way it seemed like it could, and as I was walking around one morning before lunch I happened to pass the same alley and the light seemed to be just right, and I pulled out my camera and set it fairly wide open, no more than f4, and took a shot. Just as I did a guy shouldered past me and I realized he was going to walk right into the alley. I had one shot and then he disappeared. The only work I had to do later was to bring up the shadow detail.

I liked how this was and was not what I was looking for. In any event, it was what I saw, even if I have no idea how it all became a picture.

Roger Hicks

09-07-2008, 12:59

Dear Roger,

I have a hunch you're younger than me or close. Glad to hear we are where we are in this tech world. Lots of challenges for sure. I've a digital P&S Canon S3 and a 14$ digi / POS not P&S for 'digital crappy cam' shots. The rest of my stuff is film along with a cheap Epson 4490 flat bed for scanning. On the digital equipment front it sounds close, unless you have an M8 up your sleeve.

Cutting to the chase I was merely having fun with the posters who commented that the yellow text was illegible or nearly so. That's why the post was yellow text.

In regard to the OP, darned if I can say what art is. I leave that to others. There's been a good number of ideas and opinions provided here. Regarding the the IRS advice portion of this thread, I live in Canada and the CRA has it's own rules.

cheers Jan

Dear Jan,

Relative ages: dunno. I was born on the middle day of the middle month of the middle year of the 20th century. To those who say that 15 isn't the middle of 30, nor 6 of 12, nor 50 of 100, I say: yes it bloody is.

Your yellow text joke was much appreciated (and highlighted...).

On art, I find myself rather more on Hitler's side than I like: I know it when I see it. We would no doubt agree that this is not the same as saying that my appreciation (or yours, or Hitler's) is definitive.

As for the IRS, well, I'm in France as the employee of a UK company, so I'm well acquainted with a diversity of tax codes. My point in that strand was simply that Americans sometimes imagine that the IRS is all-powerful (lamentably close to the truth, like Her Majesty's Customs and Excise); utterly inflexible (some way from the truth); incomprehensible (no, just ask the right questions); and universally applicable (I've filed taxes in the UK, USA and France...). That, and, as I said, it was to argue that the IRS is at least as good an arbiter of Fine Art Photography as any art critic I've ever read, and probably better than some, including that intolerably overrated baggage Susan Sontag.

Oh, yes; and I do have an M8 up my sleeve...

Cheers,

R.

hawkeye

09-07-2008, 15:10

Roger

What I meant is that art like science is always expanding its boundaries. Defining art is creating a boundary. Within this circle is art, outside is not. But then the job of the artist or at least the effect of the artist to bump up against those boundaries--those edges- and then the definition expands and the universe of art is a little bigger and then the next artist moves it a little more.

So Weston and Adams were radicals who made sharp, deep depth of field images, in opposition to the soft focus images of the day. Their f/64 movement was radical in its time but by expanding the definition of what is photographic art is now within the circle.

Whoa my head hurts......off to France on Wednesday to clear our the little grey cells mon ami......

Steve

Roger Hicks

09-07-2008, 23:04

Dear Steve,

Ah; thanks. I pretty much agree, but here are a couple of further thoughts.

I'd certainly be happier with 'the effect of the artist' rather than 'the job of the artist', because the latter contains the seeds of shock-for-shock's-sake: the omitted middle I mentioned.

I'm not convinced of the radicalism of Weston and Adams: look at landscape photography (especially American) from the 1870s and 1880s, and you see that the Linked Ring (a factious crew!) and the Photo-Secession with their soft, muddy images were radicals too. More a question of fashion and the dialectic, I'd suggest.

Where are you going in France? If you're passing...

Cheers,

R.

hawkeye

09-08-2008, 07:34

Roger

I'll happily concede and accept "the effect of the artist"

And understand that I am a photojournalist and I find that I can't really get beyond the "narrative" image--pictures that tell stories. So by my own definition I am not an artist. I shoot what I see as opposed to "creating" images as some have suggested is the mark of the artist.

Years ago I studied with Duane Michals ( he of "Sequences" the 1970s books). He has some work in the new issue of "Aperture" magazine. It is closer to art. He has some lovely images of gardens and a few other subjects. The image area is cut in the shape of a Japanese fan and Duane has written little poems around the black matte.

Very pretty and interesting. When I studied with Duane he tried really hard to break me of my story pictures but I never got it right.

We've rented an apartment in a small town about 30 Km south of Rouen. we'll be there and probably day trip to Honfleur and Paris in those couple of weeks we are there.

I'll email once we arrive. You'll be in Photokina for part of the time so we will see what we can manage.

Ciao

Steve

Migracer

09-09-2008, 04:00

Dear Roger and Steve
I have been enjoying this thread very much. You are both very much right and some what wrong. The part I feel that needs an asterisk is the taxation point. I do not believe that a point of paying taxes based on your taxable income makes you an artist, it does in the eye of the state but not in the eye of the beholder. In the 1990 I made income (loses) from having several photographers working for me doing motor sports photography. I bridge the point between the two of you. On one hand I am a photo journalist and this year that will be my largest share of my income. On the other hand the reason I get published is that I look at the motor sport world differently than any one else. Because of my teachers (my Uncle Ernie Caparros and my Father Rogelio Caparros ) I was influenced by both the pure artist, Ernie and the photo journalist Rogelio. Ernie was an award winning director of cinematography The Miracle Worker (the original with Patty Duke). Rogelio photos were run in most Hispanic publications in the 1940’s to the 1970’s most of his images were of war, auto racing and baseball, with side trips into commercial and “street photography”. From Rogelio I learned the need to be ready to shot at any moment, steady camera control, panning techniques, dark room imaging and the importance of clarity of image. From Ernie I got the creative eye. To take in the whole image, how light affects the subject what lens will give the result you want, mixing of different light sources to achieve a natural look. Both of these men were artist… and journalist too. I have been sidetracked with my photography taking a back seat to the other things I needed to do to make the “easy money” to provide for my family. Now is my time and I am devoting all of my efforts to photography. I am learning from the involvement with this site, the discussions and the critique. At any given point I have at least 4 cameras on me, 2 digital 2 film I am expanding what I shoot and learning, absorbing. Roger, maybe by the time we are 100 we will get it right.

Miguel

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=25727

Roger Hicks

09-09-2008, 05:14

I do not believe that a point of paying taxes based on your taxable income makes you an artist, it does in the eye of the state but not in the eye of the beholder. . . maybe by the time we are 100 we will get it right.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=25727
Dear Miguel,

For the first, I agree completely. All I meant was that it's as good a definition as any, because art is indefinable; or alternatively, it can be defined in a huge number of ways. I would certainly not present it as THE definition, or even as a particularly good one.

As for the second, yes, that's the depressing bit, isn't it? Life ain't long enough to learn all you need (or even want). As the old Latin tag has it, ars longa, vita brevis.

Cheers,

R.

hawkeye

09-09-2008, 08:42

"To take in the whole image, how light affects the subject what lens will give the result you want"

Miguel

Absolutely. We photographers are all about light and how light illuminates subjects. I also believe that the task is to convey to the viewer my response to what I am observing.

A simple example would be photographs of something we've seen a million times. Something like the Eiffel Tower or the Grand Canyon. when I see thee things I have a response to them. Most people I think will photograph these places as a record, simply to show they were there. What I strive for and it sounds like what you are trying to do is to use the image you create to produce a response in the viewer.

Ansel Adams Yosemite pictures are an example of going beyond the document. Thousands of pictures had been made of 'El Capitan' and "Half-Dome' before Adams but he produced images that produced an emotional response in the viewer. His huge gorgeous original prints really stop you in your tracks and gives you a sense of what he felt.

Steve

FallisPhoto

09-10-2008, 05:03

In the same sense when I use the term "fine art photographer" I think I am speaking of those photographers who make all or most of their living selling prints.

That won't work either. Prior to the invention of the digital camera, pretty much every photo ever sold was a print. How about this: People whose photography is intended to end up hanging on walls?

hawkeye

09-10-2008, 06:50

Would you add books to that definition? Like coffee table books?

Migracer

09-11-2008, 04:24

Some of the most stunning images these days are on the web and this is a medium that is truly revolutionized the reach and growth of photography. I can only hope that coffee table books are part of art! I worked with John Blakemore on his coffee table book "The Techniques of Grand Prix Photography'. I am currently working on a coffee table book for the local market on the Forgotten Structures of Forsyth County. Some of the best “art” work is in advertising. One form that I am not sure if needs a distinct category is the mixture of photography and computer art. We all know we can now make some incredible images starting with a base of a photograph and then taking it beyond the realm of what we can do in a dark room. More fuel for the fire. I think you need to do a longer article or a series of articles!

JohnTF

09-24-2008, 06:57

Dear Miguel,

For the first, I agree completely. All I meant was that it's as good a definition as any, because art is indefinable; or alternatively, it can be defined in a huge number of ways. I would certainly not present it as THE definition, or even as a particularly good one.

As for the second, yes, that's the depressing bit, isn't it? Life ain't long enough to learn all you need (or even want). As the old Latin tag has it, ars longa, vita brevis.

Cheers,

R.

Roger, can one legally be an artist, but perhaps, just not a good one, or is that an oxymoron? I knew some people who were legally in retail and never turned a profit, they did, however make the payroll and pay their bills?

Hope you are enjoying beer and sausage in Koln. ;-)

Regards, John

Migracer

09-25-2008, 05:20

Roger, can one legally be an artist, but perhaps, just not a good one, or is that an oxymoron? I knew some people who were legally in retail and never turned a profit, they did, however make the payroll and pay their bills?

Hope you are enjoying beer and sausage in Koln. ;-)

Regards, John

John! Any of us can consider ourselves artist, even if we don’t make a penny from our art. I think the main tenant of Steve starting this discussion was trying to narrow the definition of fine art for an article. Some opinions believe that the old tradition of being represented by a gallery is the measure, others say is a financial thing. I think we have as a group contributed a great deal of opinions to both clarify and blur the definition of fine art photography. This may be a defining moment for Steve, I think this is more than one articles worth and a whole series of articles may be the way to do this, if his editor thinks it has some worth. Given how much it has created in this forum one would have to say that this is a discussion that many photographers and artist would be interested in. The truly interesting thing for me is that Steve chose a primarily film based forum to institute the discussion. We are dealing with two completely different formats that both can be considered for the definition of fine art without exclusion of the other. We are a male dominated group and are not completely representative of the Fine Art consumers. We may be a good representation of artist. Hey Steve if you get releases from all of us I think the series is writing it self. How about if we all work a little harder on judging each others work.

JohnTF

09-26-2008, 12:54

[quote=Migracer;902146]John! Any of us can consider ourselves artist, even if we don’t make a penny from our art. I think the main tenant of Steve starting this discussion was trying to narrow the definition of fine art for an article.

Well said, and I fully agree, was just referring to the other part of the argument, a "legal" and perhaps Tax-man definition.

With the interest extant, along with the increase, both in numbers, and quality, of currently available and affordable equipment, it has become less of a question of wrestling with necessarily difficult technology, leading to a lot of very good work done by people who are Amateur, and hopefully subject and image oriented as opposed to mainly a technician.

I think Roger brought up the "law of excluded middle", and there is obviously a degree of both in most people who are serious about capturing good images.

I think the argument can be made that much of the best work is amateur produced, certainly there are many images produced by people searching seriously to find just those types of excellent images.

Would be interesting to see where RFF members would put such a theoretically sliding scale?

Regards, John

Migracer

09-27-2008, 03:47

John,
I can not help but feel that the tax man category is the least important of the subjective categories for the definition. I feel the simplest criteria for judging if an image is fine art is if it is desired by the observer enough to acquire it by any means available. Purchase from a gallery, a web site, pirated from the web, or cut out of a magazine, the number of times viewed on a site or reprints requested from an artist web site. Notice that where in the “old days” of representation, we use to wait for the catalog to be printed of the up coming exhibits, and then we had to hoof it to the gallery to see the image and the only way to acquire it was to buy it from the gallery. The old system limited the distribution and the access to a few influential buyers. The web has changed all that! All of my images on film or not are now digital, event the printing onto large scale stock is done digitally. I have not seen the inside of a dark room in 30 years but I still use all those techniques in processing the images, now it is done on a computer screen. If you take a look at my Avatar you will notice two faces, my wife and mine. That image was created “the old school “way, a pre planed double exposure. We were in a restaurant the year was 1978, I was taking some pictures of her with a twin lens reflex, on the last picture I got the idea of switching seats with her and reset the shutter and she took this shot. We have reprinted it and given it to friends and family that have seen it hanging in our home and requested a copy. This picture and a few others makes me a fine artist.

There are many ways to create fine art among then, pre planed, accidental, incidental and dumb luck. There are more, these in my opinion are the most likely way great images are created. My avatar used up two of those, planning and dumb luck. As a journalist I have two issues tugging at me, on one hand I want to create an illustration that is a work of art, on the other hand is the editor who just wants a clear printable image, trust me this is an issue. Sometimes I will have a staff photographer at the event where he is shooting literally 100 shots to my one. Digital photography has expanded the dumb luck school of shooting. A final thought, my father was an unusual person to say the least, besides being a photographer he had PhD’s in Science Physics and mathematics, he said to me in 1968, “The world is a numbers game as the population increases it tilts the odds towards having more great minds in the world. If China ever gets over this Communist thing the world is theirs”.

Regards Miguel

JohnTF

09-28-2008, 00:48

Miguel,

I was not trying to imply that the "tax-man" suggestion was the most important, but rather the opposite, but if I can remember the OP, it had something to do with gainfully producing work. I think it is much more personal and difficult, and for me it has much to do with process in addition to production.

As far as chance favoring the prepared mind and the role of luck, some would argue that art should be intensional, however IMO, good luck is preferred to bad. As I rarely have complete control in the subjects I commonly choose, a suitable moment and my readiness and ability may or may not all coincide.

If you are a painter, you can choose to add or leave something out, with photography, it can be an existing instant you are dealing with, and you do not have that degree of choice.

I am not much in favor of the "spray and pray" crowd, and not to insult anyone's technique, I cannot imagine shooting thousands of digital images of, for example, an event such as a wedding, merely because it is technically possible. Is it a wedding or a photo op, and are there really a thousand images there to be recorded or ten back ups of every shot?

I did see something I wanted once in Paris and used pretty much a whole roll of 15 in about 20 minutes as the situation progressed a bit.

I had the time and I was carrying my Fuji folder for just such an occasion with the result of several images printed. I was also aware the situation very well might evaporate and perhaps only would record a few frames. I established my position and then worked on slight variations, but the scene was there when I first looked.

I have known several people who I believe can reliably shoot a roll on almost any given day and create several good images. Perhaps they are more the artist for it.

Some days I can, but perhaps not tomorrow. I just do not always see good images, but perhaps I need to look more carefully, or change my location.

After many years am not so sure I am going to soon join the ranks of those people who just get something special at will, but if I get an image that I (in your words, would buy) on any given day, I certainly will take what I can get.

I really remember the days I get several good images, and am not so sure as to what separates those days from the not so good days.

I also think that while some images come across quite well on a computer screen, some quite good ones do not, and while there is a huge difference in what a fine print looks like in person, I also wonder how many among the population have seen a fine print first hand, and how many have purchased or otherwise acquired such a print.

Which may drag in the idea of elitist in terms of art and the population it is intended to reach,

So, there will always be some difficulty, and it may well be part of its nature, in defining such a personal quest.

I must have been an artist, I have had three prints stolen. ;-)

Regards, John

FallisPhoto

09-28-2008, 06:48

You are all taking the amateur stance, much too narrow a definition.

Such a narrow definition would eliminate many artists using photography today.

How so? If your photo is intended to end up hanging on a wall, you're obviously an artist (maybe not a very good one, but still an artist). If it is intended to end up on a bean can lable, you're obviously not.

FallisPhoto

09-28-2008, 10:05

And then hang the bean can on the wall, Warhol ?

63813

:D

Warhol's paintings didn't go on bean cans, they went on people's walls.

jan normandale

09-28-2008, 21:44

And then hang the bean can on the wall, Warhol ?

63813

:D

OT.. our Heinz bean cans have red lablels, does that mean the Canadian ones are for Republicans and French Heinz beans with blue labels are for Democrats?

BTW : I'm amazed this thread has any legs left. I may just start one on "the number of angels that can dance on the top of a 135 film cannister" ;D

JohnTF

10-02-2008, 22:18

OT.. our Heinz bean cans have red lablels, does that mean the Canadian ones are for Republicans and French Heinz beans with blue labels are for Democrats?

BTW : I'm amazed this thread has any legs left. I may just start one on "the number of angels that can dance on the top of a 135 film cannister" ;D

Would that be a Leica cartridge? ;-)

FallisPhoto

10-03-2008, 05:45

BTW : I'm amazed this thread has any legs left. I may just start one on "the number of angels that can dance on the top of a 135 film cannister" ;D

That "angels dancing on pin heads" riddle has an answer, BTW. It used to be popular way, way, way back. The Catholic Church historically regarded dancing as sinful (albeit mildly) and angels don't have free will. Therefore, they are incapable of sin and can't dance. The pinhead is just there to confuse the issue.

Sparrow

10-03-2008, 05:53

That "angels dancing on pin heads" riddle has an answer, BTW. It used to be popular way, way, way back. The Catholic Church historically regarded dancing as sinful (albeit mildly) and angels don't have free will. Therefore, they are incapable of sin and can't dance. The pinhead is just there to confuse the issue.

Yes but is dance art?? that’s what I want to know!! and what about other types of performance?

FallisPhoto

10-03-2008, 09:46

Yes but is dance art?? that’s what I want to know!! and what about other types of performance?

Depends on the dance, I guess.

Migracer

10-04-2008, 02:30

Depends on the dance, I guess.

Dancing as a sin was thought up by someone in power that could not dance! Writing was for a long time the tenant of only the cleric. I confess I am a sinner! On many levels. Living in the “South” I have learned that absolution is a way of life.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arts

Just yesterday my wife and I were discussing the definition of the arts. Without question dancing is an art, it is a form of expression and entertainment that is learned and has its own progression of skills and levels. If you take Webster’s definition any skill that is learned and applied with skills beyond the abilities of most is art. Back to the original thread, Fine Art is the epitome of the particular art skill set. A way of defining the level of proficiency for skill sets was needed, hence we ended up with the Masters category.
http://www.britannica.com/bps/search?query=master&source=MWTEXT#search=tab~TOPICS%2Cterm~master
:bang:

FallisPhoto

10-04-2008, 06:43

Dancing as a sin was thought up by someone in power that could not dance! Writing was for a long time the tenant of only the cleric. I confess I am a sinner! On many levels. Living in the “South” I have learned that absolution is a way of life.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arts

Just yesterday my wife and I were discussing the definition of the arts. Without question dancing is an art, it is a form of expression and entertainment that is learned and has its own progression of skills and levels. If you take Webster’s definition any skill that is learned and applied with skills beyond the abilities of most is art. Back to the original thread, Fine Art is the epitome of the particular art skill set. A way of defining the level of proficiency for skill sets was needed, hence we ended up with the Masters category.
http://www.britannica.com/bps/search?query=master&source=MWTEXT#search=tab~TOPICS%2Cterm~master
:bang:

Yes, but it can also simply be exercise, so it depends on the dance and the dancer.

JohnTF

10-07-2008, 13:16

>>Dancing as a sin was thought up by someone in power that could not dance!<<

Perhaps if you do it right it is sinning. ;-)

Is it Dated a couple of girls from a Kentucky college where dancing was not permitted, I think they snuck off and danced a few times in the bushes.

Met a Professor from there who was escorting a group to Europe, some sin, no dancing in the group.

Great guy.

J

Migracer

10-08-2008, 03:34

Dated a couple of girls from a Kentucky college where dancing was not permitted, I think they snuck off and danced a few times in the bushes.

J[/QUOTE]

John
When photography reached the first remote people that were not aware pf this technology, somehow the act of taking a picture was interpreted into taking the subjects’ soul. I suspect that this was thought of by someone wanting to exert control. Ah! The Art of manipulation.. Only the pure leave unscathed. But who determines purity? Are the only pure images we take the ones we do not try to enhance in the dark room or with the computer? Or is art the whole package, the end justifies the means. One of the worst things in our world is the trying to impose restrictions on each other.

Chriscrawfordphoto

10-08-2008, 03:50

Dated a couple of girls from a Kentucky college where dancing was not permitted, I think they snuck off and danced a few times in the bushes.

J

John
When photography reached the first remote people that were not aware pf this technology, somehow the act of taking a picture was interpreted into taking the subjects’ soul. I suspect that this was thought of by someone wanting to exert control. Ah! The Art of manipulation.. Only the pure leave unscathed. But who determines purity? Are the only pure images we take the ones we do not try to enhance in the dark room or with the computer? Or is art the whole package, the end justifies the means. One of the worst things in our world is the trying to impose restrictions on each other.[/QUOTE]

Actually restrictions on making images go back long before photography in the cultures that believe that. Many such cultures are hardly remote (The Amish, for example oppose photography based on the second commandment, not because they think it takes the soul, and they also oppose being drawn or painted). Most cultures that have taboos against photography also have similar beliefs about all forms of representational art depicting people. Islam, on the other hand, has always looked down on painting and drawing people (notice that mosques never have images of God, Mohammed, or other religious figures.....only abstract art and calligraphy), yet Islam doesn't seem to have ever opposed photography. I have several books of early photos of the middle East (19th century), and many of the photos were made by Muslims.

Why is putting restrictions on people one of the worst things in the world? Should we decriminalize murder? That is a big restriction on people. Restrictions (laws) exist in most cases for good reason, because people are basically animals and will act as such if given the freedom to do so. The important thing is to restrict harmful acts without taking away freedom.

Migracer

10-09-2008, 04:29

Christopher

One of the most amazing by products of joining RFF is discovering the intellect of the membership. I so enjoy the various discussions from such a variety of member backgrounds and opinions. I have met people from all over the world, of every religious, geopolitical, and race, all bound together by the enjoyment of photography.

As a consequence of joining RFF, I dusted off my rangefinder cameras and started using them again, this time with 30 years of additional experience from when I put them in the display case. I have gone from being a chronicler back to my love of the art of photography.

This particular thread has spurred me to push and experiment at every turn. My newest posting in the Gallery is from my latest attempt to paint with a camera and film, I used 4 cameras, Panasonic digital, Kodak RF 35, Canon Elan SLR, Canon 60 point and shoot. I hand held all the shots, purposely blurred some, my favorites are the pictures from the 1946 Kodak ragefinder. I will post those today as soon as the system allows me.