Recently, I came across a discussion at a Fine Art Photography group, and they were wanting to define, “Fine Art Photography”:
My first reaction to the subject of the discussion was, “What a totally useless thing to spend time on!
However, my second thought was, “Don’t be too quick to judge this topic, there may be some merit to it.”
I read through the first 30 (or so) comments, and leave it to say, my first reaction was correct: “What an utter bunch of bullocks! What a waste of time to define “Fine Art Photography”!”
Why?
Of all the “Fine Art Photographers” commenting,
● None of them defined “Fine Art Photography” the same.
● Almost all of them criticized everyone else’s definitions.
● None of them thought anyone else’s definitions were accurate.
What almost all of them DID AGREE on was that putting a definition to “Fine Art Photography” was SUBJECTIVE.
Ergo….
My belief that arguing about a definition for “Fine Art Photography” is a waste of time, and is in my SUBJECTIVE opinion, a valid belief; and therefore, time could better be spent creating Fine Art Photography, or, …… washing the dishes, or, taking a walk, or almost anything else.
Anyway, what I consider “Fine Art Photography”, someone else may consider it just, “Sort Of Fine, Art Photography”! What I consider “Great Art Photography”, others may only think it is “Very Good Art Photography”. What I may consider “Total Bullocks Art Photography”, others may consider it “Amazing Art Photography”. You get the picture.
There’s Hobbyist Photography; there’s Amateur Photography; there’s Commercial Photography; and there’s even, “Fine Art Photography”. Nevertheless, and in addition to those types of Photography, there’s also “Commercial Fine Art Photography”; and for the nitpicker-Photographers, there’s even, “Amateur Hobbyist Part-time Freelance Commercial Fine Art Low-Light Architectural Photography”! Get a load of that!
Why-oh-why must we define “Fine Art Photography”? Well, there’s at least 30 Fine Art Photographers at that Fine Art Photography group, who thought it was a matter of much importance, and I’m sure there are many, many more who feel the same way about it. I’m not particularly one of them.
What happens if by some miracle, the majority of “Fine Art Photographers” were ACTUALLY able to agree upon a definition, and when they reveal the definition to the world, I find out that my work does not conform to their definition!?! I may have a stroke! My work would have no definitive definition to fit under. My mountains of “Fine Art Photography” work, would suddenly become label’less!
I would then have to tell people, “This is a new work, I simply have to classify it as “VOID”, or, “THING”.
“Hi there, this is my new work, I put it in my “THING” Collection: “THING ONE” is what it’s called. That one over there, it is “THING TWO”!”
WOW! This naming and defining of photography types could lead to a lot of world chaos. I personally don’t want to add more chaos to the world, but that certainly won’t deter others from pushing for it.
PS: I am of the opinion that I will continue to design artworks of a photographic nature, which I normally consider “Fine Art Photography”. And of course, these “Fine Art Photographs” are of “Fine Art” styles (Abstract, Abstract Expressionism, Color Field, and Still Life) that I truly enjoy creating. I am less concerned if my artwork conforms to other people’s labels and definitions.
Behind the Lens 