difference between "fine art photography" and "photography"?

[Charlie Lemay]

I've been a photographer nearly my whole life and learned the basics at a summer program at the same School where I currenty teach photography, computer graphics and fine art foundations. i've exhibited work in Museums and galleries nearly every year since 1981. All the while, I ran my own graphic design and photography business. I made two kinds of work, what we used to call commercial and personal. Every photographer I knew did. All that said, I finally came to realize one day at 47 years old, that I had never really "art" until then. I never thought what I was doing before that was not art making, but when my ubique personal vision finally arrived, out of nowhere, I actually saw the difference. Everything I had done before then was just practice. When you are actually making "art," you know it. If you have any doubt, you're probably not. That doesn't mean others can't experience anything you do as "art," but that's about them, not you.

The "art world" can be viewed like horse racing. Horses are the art, jockeys are the artists, stable owners are the galleries, and oddsmakers and analists are the critics. In horseracing only the jockey has a direct impact on the horse's performnce. In the "art world," everybody after the artist exerts influence and pressure that would be patently illegal in horseracing. Hence the reason for the impression of corruption in the "art world."

Based on my experience making "fine art photography," I offer this: photography documents whatever we put in front of our camera, "art photgraphy" documents our unique personal vision of it.

Of course, a lot of what is presented as "fine art Photography" is actually emulation of the unique personal vision of others, art that looks like what art is supposed to look like, but you see that in every creative form. Photography is not alone in this. Success has emulation as a natural side effect. It's a ligitimate pursuit while you wait for your unique personal vision to arrive.

The attitude that calling the work you make "fine art photography" is somehow always pretentious, isn't very useful. At the very least, saying that you are a "fine art photographer" tells everyone your goal, your intent, how you would like the work tht you do to be appreciated and received. It shouldn't be a basis for criticism as some always seem to want to make it.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Charlie Lemay

Of course, a lot of what is presented as "fine art Photography" is actually emulation of the unique personal vision of others, art that looks like what art is supposed to look like, but you see that in every creative form.

The attitude that calling the work you make "fine art photography" is somehow always pretentious, isn't very useful. At the very least, saying that you are a "fine art photographer" tells everyone your goal, your intent, how you would like the work tht you do to be appreciated and received.

Your quote above is the reason many feel it is pretentious.

[Charlie Lemay]

Sadly, jsrockit, you are probably right. Most "fine art" anything is emulation. That's how people learn things. It doesn't make sense to waste energy on negative thinking about it. I've been making digital collage work since 1995 and am acrually offended by the attention and money Gursky gets for what he does. I don't waste my time ranting about it, I'd rather just ignore him and continue to do what I have been doing. I really treasure my amature status, because it means that I only have to make the art that I am inspired to make and don't have to worry about what anyone else thinks.

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Charlie,

Given the choice between you and Gursky, I know whose work I'd rather have on my walls. In fact I know, whose work I actually have on my walls. But once your work tops $1,000,000 a picture, my loyalty may be strained...

Cheers,

R.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Dear Charlie,

Given the choice between you and Gursky, I know whose work I'd rather have on my walls. In fact I know, whose work I actually have on my walls. But once your work tops $1,000,000 a picture, my loyalty may be strained...

Cheers,

R.

... are your walls large enough for Gursky? ... I always assumed it was a conceit of the commercial fine art dealers, who have the fine art galleries that sell fine art, em art ... I'm expecting the fist very fine art gallery or very fine art degree to be here any time

[Charlie Lemay]

Thanks Roger,

Have you seen my Digital Tarot? I believe it is my master work. It's on my website. I took a bit of your advice and made all the fingers B&W. It made all the difference. Thank you. I made a few prototype decks on an inkjet printer, and though they are not as good as actual offset printed cards will look, they are nothing to be embarassed to share. I would love to send you a deck to see how you experience them. Email me an address where you would like me to send them.

give my best to Frances,

Charlie

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Charlie Lemay

I really treasure my amature status, because it means that I only have to make the art that I am inspired to make and don't have to worry about what anyone else thinks.

Amen to that!

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

... are your walls large enough for Gursky? ...

Well, there is that...

Cheers,

R.