This post is Part One of a series of blog posts I will upload over the next couple of weeks concerning the definition of “Fine Art Photography.” Please feel free to contribute your own feedback and perspectives by leaving a comment on this post.
I am frequently asked, “What is Fine Art Photography?” The questions take various forms, such as, “Just what is Fine Art Photography, exactly?” or, “How can a photograph be Fine Art?” My favorite, and the most honest form of the question is, “What’s the difference between Fine Art and pretty pictures?”
The truth is, I’ve often asked the same question of myself. In attempting to answer this query, I have considered many bright-line definitions saying, “On this side of the stripe we have photo images, and on that side we have Fine Art, and here is the difference between the two.” However, I’ve learned that no such bright line exists, and there is no ‘exactly’ for defining Fine Art Photography. The answer to the question fills books on photographic critical theory, art academic journals, and thesis presentations.
In simple terms, Wikipedia tells us that Fine Art Photographs are photographs created in accordance with the creative vision of the photographer as an artist. Conversely, photojournalism provides visual support for stories, and commercial photography supports the sale of products or services. This may be true as a loose baseline definition, one that separates Fine Art work from commercial illustration and documentation, but it fails to tell us the difference between great pictures, and Fine Art photographs.
If the baseline description is inadequate, where do we turn for a definition that will be universally understood?
One could, and should, examine photography from the perspective of critical theory. However, most photographers do not do this. Typically, they see little practical relevance in the work of critical theorists who are generally academics writing for other academics, already familiar with the issues, vocabulary, and historical arguments. Thus, critical theory is often perceived as unnecessarily elitist, and working photographers who are quite capable of debating the issues ignore the opportunity to do so.
Susan Sontag’s On Photography, John Szarkowski’s The Photographer’s Eye, and Roland Barthes’ Camera Lucida are all must-reads for Fine Art and Photography majors at most academic institutions. I encourage all photographers who are serious about the Fine Art genre to read these works. Be forewarned, however, Sontag’s and Barthes’ essays explore photography’s philosophical causes and effects, and are heavy reads. Szarkowski’s work reduces the photograph to basic, understandable elements that provide the reader with a ‘truth’ framework.
While critical theorists do explore the outer reaches of photographic philosophy and its impact on society, they do not define ‘Fine Art Photography’. This may lead us to conclude that there may be no definition. In fact, the opposite is true. There are as many definitions as there are Fine Art practitioners, critics, gallery operators, collectors, and art ‘wannabes’.
I believe the best definition of Fine Art Photography surfaces when the viewer and creator can collectively synthesize ‘what is’ and ‘what is not’ Fine Art Photography. This comes from an understanding of emotional tone, emotional range, and vision beyond documentation or record.
Yes, to answer one form of the question, there is a difference between pretty pictures and Fine Art photographs. Pretty pictures deliver ‘pretty’. Fine Art images deliver visual impact that stirs the emotions, challenges the intellect, and advances how we see the subject in new ways. Many Fine Art images are not what you might refer to as ‘pretty’.
In upcoming blog entries, I will explore the synthesis elements that allow us to see and feel this difference. In the interim, do you have thoughts to share on the concept of “Fine Art Photography?” Please leave your comments and feedback.
