After reading this article, you may want to read a follow-up post I wrote.
The photograph you see above is not fine art photography. Read the rest and see why I think that.
Photography is a democratic medium, everyone can take photographs. They may not be great photographs but the process of taking pictures has become exceedingly easy. This is both good and bad. Especially when it comes to fine art photography.
It is good because it allows anyone with a creative mind to express her or his ideas without being bogged down with technique, like learning how to paint. This will present a great opportunity for those creative individuals. On the other hand, everyone snapping another picture, to clutter the closet, or more recently, the computer storage takes a little wind out of the photographic sail. This apparent ease of making pictures erroneously creates the impression that photographic art is easy. Quite the contrary.
What is Fine Art Photography
So, what makes a photograph a “fine art photograph?” This is not an easy question to answer. Many have tried to explain it roundaboutly, a road that may be wise to follow. I want to suggest some attributes that put a photograph in the domain of fine art. Before presenting my ideas I should point out that they will reflect my biases, so please take them for what they are: an attempt to understand the concept of fine art photography and make you, the reader, think about these matters consciously.
Upon evaluating my position you may decide that this is nonsense, which is perfectly fine. The challenge then is for you to think about a way of approaching the phenomenon. I would love to hear your thoughts.
Message
First, and foremost, a fine art photograph begins with a message, an idea. With this, I do not mean a social commentary, something extraordinarily profound, but a meaning encoded into the photograph is essential. Many people have ideas, many people can produce photographs, and those who can bring these attributes together produce memorable fine art photographs.
Intention
The next thing I look for is intentionality. By this, I mean the intentional execution of the photograph should come across with reasonable force. The choices (see next) the photographer has made will be clearly visible in the photograph and consistently be so. This separates the accidental snapshots from artistic expressions, at least that’s the way I see it.
Note added on 12/05/2007. After discussing these ideas with friends, I believe further explanation of “intention” is necessary. I use the term here in a limited sense which does not include “I intend to shoot a photograph” usage. I used the word to express the opposite of “accidental” with a clear implication of “repeatability”. In other words, the body of work needs to show that the photographer can, and has achieved results consistent with the intention. If it were accidental, this level of consistency would likely lack.
To illustrate this point during a conversation, I used Garry Winogrand and how his style came through in even seemingly random shots. One can also think of Walker Evans and his subway series as an example. The frame, which is part of the choices he or she makes, is not the sole indicator of this consistency. I directly refer to the non-accidental nature that I seek in the body of work. In Evans’ subway series, the framing is done without looking through the viewfinder of the camera as it was hidden. However, his intention of showing people as they were, without being aware of being photographed comes loud and clear in the photographs and his style evident in them.
Choice
“Choice” is the third element that brings a photograph closer to the fine art domain. It conveys the choices the photographer has made, not only in choosing the elements in the structure of the photograph but also in choosing a particular frame from among several or even many.
Of course, the way it is presented is part of this dimension as well as the appearance of the photograph, printed-down, high key, low or high saturation, film choice, and so on. These are the result of the photographer making a series of choices, which should all be intentionally presented. This also forces the photographer to commit to the way the photograph will be presented.
Note added on 12/05/2007. The first choice the photographer makes is probably at the idea level. From among many, he or she chooses one. Then in executing the idea, the photographer makes a choice from among an infinite number of frames and placement of elements. These may drive the choices that follow in the size and type of print, toning, etc.
The technique, or Craft
The fourth characteristic I look for is technical excellence. If the photographer wanted to make the image look faded, distressed, torn, or otherwise manipulated, I consider the proper execution of these as part of technical excellence.
Note added on 12/05/2007. I would like to emphasize my main point as the method and tools used to encode a message into the photograph. As such, these tools and methods should be subservient to the image rather than dominating it.
Unencumbered enjoyment of the art is important to me, without requiring gear set up to enjoy the art. So, I favor prints for fine art photography. A print also shows the choice the photographer has made more strongly than a slide or a digital photograph on a monitor. Now, this will go against those who enjoy a good slide presentation, either simply going from one to the next or a more elaborate one with effects and music.
I will enjoy a presentation like that too, but for me, the process of setting up the gear to enjoy the art removes some of the critical choices I mentioned above, a sign of commitment to the idea and its execution. If a slide does not generate the desired response, keep changing it until it does, which is not an artistic choice but more or less a reactionary process.
I appreciate the “installations” that museums have, where photography may be a part. To me, the “installation” is the art, and photography is on the periphery. Further, the “show” becomes art, if it does that, which is distinctly different from looking at a single fine art print. (I told you I would show my biases!) And this is the reason the above photographs as you see it is not fine art photography. It is still a potential.
Like or Dislike is Outside Fine Art Photography
Finally, I would like to mention that I don’t need to like a particular fine art photograph. Liking does not make it fine art; its form, execution, and content do. But I fully appreciate the work displayed presenting the choices the photographer has made. After all, this is her or his message.
Note added on 12/05/2007. I would like to expand on the idea of content as the message encoded in the subject. I am intentionally separating here “subject” from “content”. To me, subject refers to the object depicted in the photograph. It may be a few fresh fruit or a few prunes. What they stand for is what I call the “content”. This is a separation that helps me understand the structure of a photograph and it may very well not be a proper way of looking at photographs. As I learn more, I may add more notes.
Note: This article was cited
Ashley
I’ve read this article several times now and whilst I agree with everything you’ve said, there is something missing… I just can’t put my finger on it. When I listen to an artist describe thier work (although sometimes extremely pretentious), they seem to understand what they are doing beyond the nomenclatures given above.
I have a personal attatchment to my own work and at the same time a lack of caring as to what people think. It means something to me and whilst yes, I do enjoy critisism (and curl over in embarrassment when looking at my own earlier works) I do not want my message to be understood by the massess. Fine art seems to float above ‘likes’, ‘retweets’ and other social media nonsense.
A. Cemal Ekin
Ashley, thanks for taking time to share your thoughts. I would not presume to have the final and complete word on fine art photography. I simply presented a framework that works for me and encourage the reader to think along the same lines. The artist talks encompass their thought processes as well as background information that compelled them to produce that body of work. I am also not talking about the concepts of compositions, the structure of the photograph(s) and the like. This is a “macro” view whereas they most likely talk about their micro perspectives. All said though, you will likely find the qualities I summarized in their work as well. By all means, share other thoughts you may have on the mater.
Cemal
L'aura
Thank you for this article! It’s given me some structure to think about what -I- consider fine art. I’m having a hard time understanding your definition of “message”, though. I’m a wildlife & nature photographer and I can understand Intention (intending to capture bold elk bucks during rut with autumn colours in the background), Choice (choosing the lone buck at dawn or the buck and his harem in the sunset, choosing a close portrait or a wide landscape), Technique (the ability to work in the environment and to use my tools to capture light, white balance, exposure, etc), Print (my number one defining characteristic of “fine art” has been that it SHOULD be on a wall). I’m struggling with message, though. I WANT to share my art with the world and maybe that is my message – I want to cause a sense of awe for the natural world (that we are a part of, but sometimes feel disconnected). I want to compel others to go stand in these places and feel the world around them. My confusion comes in wondering whether that’s the message you’ll receive. I know my aim, but if you judge my art, how do I know that you will see the message?
A. Cemal Ekin
Thanks L’aura for your comment. Let me see if I can explain better.
What I wrote was a framework that I adopted to frame my thoughts. However, it has received many visitors some even used it as one of the core articles in their thesis work. The visits and the use the article receives pleases me very much. But it is only a starting point. Let me see if I can approach it from a different angle to bring more sense to “meaning.”
In any communication process, the sender encodes a message and puts it in a medium where it is intercepted by the receiver and decoded. The encoding and decoding processes need to have an overlapping system for this to succeed. I have written a few more articles where I specifically talk about the language and message aspects, you may want to take a look at those:
https://www.keptlight.com/photography-and-language-1/
https://www.keptlight.com/photography-and-language-2/
https://www.keptlight.com/photography-and-language-3/
That said, there is not guarantee that the receiver will get the exact message since it all happens in a “noisy” environment and the receiver may not know the “language” used in encoding the “message.”
One final thought that may help make sense of all these is the nature of photographs. Generally, people look at photographs and either recognize or ask “what it is.” However, the more important and deeper level of meaning lies in “what is it about?” For instance you may or may not remember the famous “Napalm Girl” photograph of Nick Ut. “It is” a naked girl running away with burn marks on her body, a few other kids run with her while some soldiers walk by. You can talk more about what it is but the essence of the photograph lies in appreciating “the terror and horror of war.”
I encourage you to think about your nature photography, is it, or should it be read “as a red fox with its babies” or “instinct of a mother to protect its family?” Or something you intend to say in that photograph.
Once you start thinking along these lines, you will likely see your photographs differently and the “message” will start crystallizing right before your eyes and in your mind. It is “what your photograph is about” not “what is depicted in it.”
Here is another post to review, then I will close with a quotation:
https://www.keptlight.com/on-beauty/
“Do you want to take photographs of beautiful things, or beautiful photographs of things?”
Bazzer
An interesting piece, when it comes to fine art photography you can’t just call yourself a fine art photographer, that title has to come from some respected outsider, I do not consider myself a fine art photographer but my brother in law an executive director of an art school and well respected artist in his own right has two of my prints on his wall of my photographs, he loves them and likes to show them to people who visit his house, he says I’m a fine art photographer the silly thing is I don’t think I am by a long way when I look at other people’s work.
Cemal Ekin
Bazzer, you are correct, you cannot merely declare you are a fine art photographer. The term itself is confusing. You may want to take a look at the following post as well:
https://www.keptlight.com/fine-art-photography-revisited/
On the other hand, one can have a burning desire to make art, make art, but not be appreciated. A prime example is Vincent Van Gogh, who, in his life time was not much appreciated and did not sell more than a few paintings. But we now know his genius and are glad he continued making art without the support of the art circles.
Keep doing what you like, make your photographs express some thoughts, explore and express your emotions with them, they will start talking for you which is the essence of art.
Pierre
I’ve been trying for some time to understand the concept of art in photography, without too much luck.
Your blog contains many very interesting ideas I’ll want to ponder carefully. It’s the best I found so far on this topic.
I would be nice if you could take one (or more) of the photos from your language series, for example, the interior of Hagia Sophia (a picture I think I could have taken) and elaborate on the following points mentioned is this web page:
The last two points of what makes an art photo, technique and print, are clear to me. And I fully agree with the idea of unencumbered enjoyment of the art, ie. that an art photo is best printed, on a wall.
Cemal Ekin
Pierre, thank you for taking time to write your comment and sending it to me via e-mail since the comments close automatically after a passage of time. I added that to the others because of your interest to make these important points. You may want to find the posts on “photography and language,” “reading photographs,” “ways of seeing photographs” which may do, at least in part what you hoped to find.
Feel free to contact me again if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Cemal
Osbourne
Great discussion, however there is one aspect which impacts all art and it is the intangible quality “talent” which the artist has. Some people just does certain things better than others.
Cemal Ekin
Thanks for chiming in Osbourne. Talent is what creates fine art. This article focused on the latter.
Cemal