“Fine Art,” photography, what makes an image deser

[wynpotter]

Oh I agree, it makes sense. Yes there is a monetary value place on things that we enjoy(value). The value is in some way a measure of how people have of describing "art" , it maybe a poor choice but it is used anyway. The example above was my poor attempt at "perception of art". the example of Schrödinger's cat expresses the ambiguous nature of Art in a way that relates to the nature of peoples understanding of Art.
It would seem that part of the definition of "Fine Art XZY" has to come from what the public expects fine art to be, but that is external to my creating art.
Graffiti Art, is to me a valid art form, but in the context of location, gangs, and material, it's not a practical Fine Art form for the business side of Art.
Alain wrote an essay about the business of art vs creating art and part of our discussion on this thread has moved on both sides of this issue.
Maybe what we can say is as individuals, we create images that please our souls and if we have the integrity to not misrepresent our work as something its not and use the best methods and materials  today to communicate our vision, we have created "Fine Art ", photography, painting, wall art. etc.  I am always going to have a problem with the  business ethics of selling art. It's akin to  going to the kitchen of a restaurant, you learn more than you really wanted to know, and the food never taste quite the same again, but that's just me. Wyndham

[robertwatcher]

To me it is strictly what you as a photographer want to call or label your work. And secondarily whether there will be someone who values it or even purchases it based on what label you have given it. Although in reality it will still be Fine Art to you even if no one else sees it that way. And NO - an exchange of money or even someone other than yourself maintaining posession of the piece, isn't a requirement to make Art, Art or Photography, Fine Art - - - in my opinion.

I think it is impossible to pigeon hole the term and its product. As an example, I have several images that I have sold for commercial use as stock images where I did not term them as fine art and probably would not consider them to be so. I also have sold the same images as Fine Art prints. In another example, a golf course hired me in the spring to take shots for their website that did not reflect the standard golf course shots but were Fine Art shots similar to some of my work they had seen. I guess the small images on the website are fine art images - they are considered that by the client that hired me - but I don't tend to think of them as that for that application. However we will be using the same images to make Fine Art prints to sell to members of the course. And then the next question for me is - should they be printed on archival watercolor paper to make them fine art? I have produced Fine Art prints on both fine art papers and glossy papers. Does it have to be signed and numbered or limited edition and documented? I guess it just depends on how I see it.

I personally don't see Fine Art as having to be an altered or artistic image in content - to label it that. It probably has a feel, mood or emotional draw to it - but could be cold, static and maybe even uninteresting - and could just as easily be futuristic, simplistic, artistic or realistic in content. I use the term Fine Art with some of my Love Story and portrait images and have several documentary type shots that to me are Fine Art. I have just completed a 24x36 inch canvas print of a table setting as fine art to be displayed in a customers home. It is Fine Art as far as they are concerned. I feel that for the most part, today it is used simply as a selling termonology - and means little more than other terms that are bantied about on photographers websites and sales materials. Do I make use of them? Yes. Now if I was selling or showing in an Art Gallery and they saw Fine Art prints as being presented or printed in a certain way, then I guess they are the ones dictating what Fine Art is from their perspective - on the other hand another gallery may see the content or presentation differently.

[amtr_kid]

i have a question...
being a non-professional...i have taken this "thing" pretty seriously...one sure thing that is holding me back from taking it into profession is that down here in bangladesh photographers dont earn much.
still i do photography and give it all the time and effort i can. now i cant show my works, i cant sell them so i dont have any audiance.

still i do it with passion.i plan my works, i mean on what i am gonna work. infact those are sometimes written plans. with details and all...

from some of your comments i got confused as i dont show my work or i dont have any audiance.i do it for my love of it. so...

can i/you call it art...?

[robertwatcher]

so...

can i/you call it art...?

I have photography hanging on my walls that I consider fine art that no one except friends and family that come to my home are able to see. I guess that I as the photographer am the one to make that determintion. If I were to feel that Fine Art can only be a classification of some commercial venture, then even if I feel it is art, acceptance would depend on someone else feeling the same and displaying it in their gallery or forking out money for it. I just think that in general "Fine Art"  is a marketing term that really means very little as everyone uses it.