Fine art photography (FAP) refers to photographs that are made in the creative vision of the photographer as an artist. Fine art photography is generally in contrast to photojournalism, which is a visual account of news events or a record of things, places, and people. Commercial photography, whose main focus is to advertise products or services, generally stays out of fine arts as well. That said, in my experience, business and journalism often turn into fine art.
If one reviews the history of photography, it quickly becomes apparent that well-done image narratives, produced for journalistic or commercial purposes, often become objects of art. Often, but not always, this transition takes place long after the journalistic or commercial significance has passed. If one examines the enduring images of the great photographic publications of the past, the truth of this can easily be verified. Today, many really great images can be seen on the web, produced from current journalistic and business traditions.
I couldn’t find any generally accepted definition of the terms “fine art photography”, “fine art photography” or “fine art photography”. Definitions are found in articles, essays, and reference books in all media. What seems to be missing is the generally or universally accepted part (see: Wikipedia-Fine Art Photography for examples).
The balance of this essay depends more on personal opinion than academic. A significant difference between an artistic representation and the fine arts is the level of emotion created by the narrative of the image. An artistic rendition of a really cool image. that is presented creatively is surely art. The fine arts take that by taking one or two more steps towards an emotional place that transcends the proposal or the place. Art in general and fine arts almost always have a transcendence or universality that only images cannot match. The fine arts fuse all the compositional, technical and transcendental qualities to give her and her narrative a true universality.
I have been in this photography business, albeit hesitantly at first, since I was 11, that is (58 years old). During that time I have created images for almost any purpose one can imagine. In my mind or better for my taste, I have created works of art in most, if not all. The exception is probably in the classification snapshots. I have some really good ones, but not a real art. In trying to create the best possible images, of whatever subject and purpose interested me, I found that my creative vision could often be fulfilled. I should also note that while my vision was frequently met, my technical proficiency, or the limitations of the day’s gear, they didn’t always yield stellar results.
A truly artistic image, regardless of subject or purpose, has the qualities, often intangible, of what I call fine art. I have some training and education in art history. I understand the principles of composition and most technical aspects of most, if not all forms of art. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t claim to have full competence for anyone except photography.
As I Found It and Ideal Totem (my two stock photography services) contain over 4,000 images (at the time of writing). A very high proportion of these stock images qualify as art. They are good and well presented, even the textures and patterns tell their story well. Some are probably even cool. Maybe not as many as my ego would like, but it’s still a good number. Neither is a true art.
A small percentage of my work has been selected to be offered as very limited special editions of fine art. These editions will be presented in physical format that has the same listing quality as the images themselves.
In a world of fine arts, images are often classified in the same way as paintings. For example: impressionism, abstract, realism, etc. Fine Arts involve the imposition of the creative mind on reality except in the school of Realism. Impressionism is more concerned with the spirit of a subject than with a precise interpretation. The realities of abstraction in a different outside world view often reduce the subject to geometric shapes, lines, and areas of color.
The photographer can and does it too. Your toolbox is different. Gone are the brushes and the spatula. Substitute one technology for another.
Digital art and modern photography have the potential to become overproduced and ubiquitous. No matter how good a work is, if reality and uniqueness are not preserved, it becomes ordinary and cheap. The power or feeling created by the image as if it has not been lost is the common thing that causes it to be devalued.
For digital art, in any form, to maintain a unique, backward and valued position, it must be produced or created in very restricted and limited quantities. We are not talking about hundreds, we are talking about ten or less. If all the physical characteristics of the work achieve an exceptional quality, the same type of quality as an oil or water painting; it may not yet have a real economic value, unless the numbers are severely restricted. Only then can a status of Fine Photographic Arts be maintained.
