What Is "Fine Art" Photography?

This is an art photograph if for no other reason than it sold as such and was included in a published collection of art photography. It also meets at least eleven of Alain Briot's 14 criterea. I won't say which.

"Gordon, perhaps you could do a post about what makes a photo ‘Fine Art.” This term seems to be bandied around a lot these days, and any photo category from portrait, landscape to macro seems fair game to be included in the ‘fine art’ group. It would be nice to know what you and your readers consider the attributes that an image must have to be labelled ‘fine art.’"

-- ATB Karl

Great question, Karl. Here is Alain Briot’s 14-point checklist from Marketing Fine Art Photography:

1. Fine art photography is first about the artist.
2. The photographer must consider himself an artist.
3. The artist must demonstrate control of the creative process and final outcome.
4. A fine art photograph is done with the goal of creating a work of art.
5. A fine art photograph is not just documentary.
6. The image represents an interpretation of the subject.
7. A fine art photograph has an emotional content.
8. The composition is complex and sophisticated.
9. A metaphorical level of meaning is present in the image.
10. The emphasis is on quality instead of quantity.
11. Cost considerations are secondary.
12. The artist wrote an artist statement.
13. Individual pieces are part of a larger body of work.
14. The work is discussed in relationship to other works of art.

Briot provides a full explanation of each one in the book. Quibblers might take issue with one or two, but on the whole Briot’s list presents a clear picture (pardon the expression) of what’s required.

My personal opinion is that “fine art photography” is as much a marketing term as anything else. It’s a label you (the photographer) apply to your work when you want to sell it to people who value the visual appeal of a photographic print as much as the image itself.  I have to admit that as marketing terms go, the difference between “art photography” and “fine art photography” escapes me.

Keep in mind that people who buy (fine) art photographs normally intend to frame and display them. If they spend several hundred dollars for a print plus matting and framing, they want their friends, family and associates to believe said photo has artistic merit. This is where credentials such as artist statements, gallery show credits, art school degrees, and bodies of work come in handy. If the work itself strains artistic credibility, credentials help to reinforce the seriousness of the artist (if not the art).

To summarize, my position is that you can call your photographs whatever you like among family and friends, including “fine art.” If, however, you plan to sell them as such, your work will most likely be held to artistic standards such as the ones Briot has listed. You don’t have to agree with them; you can even ignore some of them; but to ignore all of them is to render your work unmarketable as art photography.

That's how I see it. Those of you who have achieved a level of success in the fine art market and feel you have something of value to share with the rest of us should feel free to do so.

Comments

[Craig]

I think it's a mistake to consider the "art market" or "marketability" at all in defining what is art or even "fine art". One of the distinctions Briot fails to mention is that fine art and commercial art are two different categories. A commercial artist is someone who does his work for commercial reasons; he may be hired to create images for advertising, for example, or his main purpose in creating images may be to make images that will be commercially successful (lots of stock photo sales, lots of gallery posters sold, that sort of thing). This does not exclude being featured in gallery shows; it's the intention that matters. A fine artist may also sell his work, but he doesn't create it primarily to make money from it; that he can sell it may not be merely a side effect (we all have bills to pay, after all), but it's a secondary consideration. Briot's point #11 is a step in this direction, but it's all financial considerations, not just "cost", that matter.

One can indeed disagree with some of Briot's other points. Must a composition be "complex and sophisticated"? Depends on your definitions of those terms, I suppose, but you can make fine art with an apple and a plain white background (it's been done); is that a "complex" composition? I wouldn't say so.

I would tend to agree with point #3 in general, but there are notable exceptions. Garry Winogrand has been described as an inept photographic technician, and his statement that he took photographs "to see how things look when photographed" is at odds with the more common view that one should have a definite vision in advance of how a picture will turn out, and apply one's skills to achieve that result.

With #5 and #9, again, it depends how one defines the words. Are Dorothea Lange's photos of migrant workers "merely" documentary? Do they have a "metaphorical level of meaning"? If they are just well-done social documents without metaphorical content, does that diminish their value (not in a financial sense) as art?

[Jerry Kircus]

"If you have to read the caption to know what is in the picture, it is no good" an editor once told me. If you need artist's statements or credentials, who the photographer is or how he spared no cost, or other captions to tell you it is a good picture, you are wasting your money. The photo should stand on it's own, so look at the picture. If you like it, it is art. If you don't or don't know, save your money and buy a motorcycle or fishing boat or new dress or something else you know you like.

[Florian Freimoser]

Hello,

I also much prefer your and the commenters more "open" view over the 14-point fine art checklist. I am sure that many things have been considered "art" without fulfilling any of the criteria mentioned. And I particularly agree with Jerry Kircus that if anybody is to define whether something is art or not, it should be a viewer and not the creator.
Therefore, I would not like to describe my photographs as fine art because I think it is not up to me to "grant" this title and because I think that "photograph" is enough. I try to take photographs that I like and I am glad if a few other people do so too; irrespective of what "label" they use.

[CFW]

Is every oil painting considered "art?" I would guess that just about everyone that does a painting considers himself or herself as creating "art." Whether it's good or not is in the eye of the beholder. I've seen some paintings that were so bad it was hard to even appreciate the painter's creative effort. There are, of course, certain fundamental technical factors that must be mastered before the painter even gets in the ballpark of creating "art." Some artists, like Van Gogh for instance, hit the nail so squarely on the head that just about the whole world can find artistic enjoyment in one or more of his paintings.

Just because the camera has been, and is used as a documentary tool, does not render the criteria for what is "art" any different from that of a painting, in my opinion.

I would reduce the criteria for what is considered "fine art" photography to only one: It's whatever the photographer puts out there as "fine art" photography. Whether it's good, or whether it stinks up the place, is in the eye of the beholder. "Marketing" that art, however, is a whole different ballgame and involves a different set of criteria for success.

cfw

[Gianni Galassi]

I share your point of view, Gordon.
Of course, as pointed out in previous comments, the "work of art" label is the result of a complex relationship between many elements, including marketing strategies, market trends, friendships, culture, politics, coincidence and random events.
Nonetheless, as far as the author is in control of the process (which is close to nothing), one has to follow guidelines and discipline. A work of art is hardly the result of an unaware action. In fact we are talking about a creative process which is based on craftmanship (a few artisan become artists, but every artist is a skilled artisan in the first place) and connected with a wider body of work, no matter the final result.
What made me achieve my level of success in the fine art market is a policy of low prices (for an unlimited number of prints - I don't make editions), direct marketing (I don't have intermediaries anymore; only collaborators, if any) and the choice of exhibiting my work in public spaces (as museums or fountations).
I don't do big volumes -yet- but I enjoy having a personal contact with buyers and collectors. It's a rewarding and instructive experience.

[Dave Jenkins]

Most of the photographs made throughout the history of photography that are now considered art meet few of the qualifications listed. To be honest, I think most of the points on the checklist are bologna and have little do do with whether or not a photograph is "art," but have a lot do do with photographers wanting to be considered artists, with the status perks thereto appertaining.