I was a wedding and portrait photographer for 25 years. In 2015 I became a fine art photographer, but today I just call myself an artist. I'm a painter as well, but it's my photography that is the mainstay of my artworks. You see the camera is just another tool like a paintbrush to me. I'm never recording what I see in the viewfinder instead I am envisioning my creativity within the frame pre and post production. My images are creations not recordings to see beyond the obvious, to put my own stamp on the scene I'm photographing that defines what a fine art photographer means to me. Seeing beyond the obvious towards a creative vision and a unique interpretation.
Hi Simon, your journey from photographer to artist is inspiring. I am pleased to hear that you to see the camera as a tool for creative expression, akin to a paintbrush. Regards Martin
@@MartinOsner I love your work. I also became a painter during lockdown, but my strengths lie with a camera. I have a number of friends who are painters and they see me equally as an artist. I think sometimes we fine art photographers often question if we are artists. We are without a doubt true artists.
The first video I watched about Fine Art Photography claimed that you had to use black and white, ND filters and time exposure. Your explanation I found to be a bit more sensible. Thank you.
Hi Andrew, it's interesting how different sources can offer contrasting perspectives on what constitutes fine art photography. This highlights the depths of this discussion. I'm glad my explanation resonated with you more. You're welcome!
@@MartinOsner What you said about the definition that fine art photography is a style of photography is valid, but I'd add it is also circular. Strip away all the adjectives and it is basically saying art is art. Someone could ask me what an apple is. If I say an apple is an apple that it technically true, but the person asking about what an apple is obviously doesn't know what an apple is or they would not be asking so me telling them an apple is an apple, while technically true, leaves the person who asked that question no more informed than when they started. If I explained what type of fruit it was or, better yet, handed them an apple then some information is actually being imparted.
So glad you incorporated Stieglitz into your talk. The struggle to get photography accepted as art is important historically and to show that this topic is far from new. I’ve reflected on this topic for 20+ years and still haven’t finished my thinking.
Hi Jim, I'm glad you appreciated the mention of Stieglitz and the historical struggle of getting photography accepted as art. Stieglitz is a testament to the richness and depth of photography as an art form.!
A lot of people mistake minimalism for fine art photography, and it's easy to see why, but the confusion is even more complicated as fine art photography are simply defined as images created in line with the vision of the artist, and in our domain using photography as a medium for creative expression. The goal of fine art photography is to express an idea, a message, or an emotion but it then gets even more confusing as you can alter an image from anything to anything using anything you like to create it For example: filters, long or short exposures, artificial lighting, darkroom, computer, multiple images, distorted lenses, AI, paint, (as a Pro I used to retouch transparencies, in fact we all did). So with all that in mind everyone who ever takes a picture is essentially a fine art photographer - even minimalists!!
You raise an excellent point. Many people confuse minimalism with fine art photography, and it's understandable. However, fine art photography is defined by images created according to the artist's vision, using photography as a medium for creative expression. The goal is to convey an idea, message, or emotion. The confusion grows because there are so many tools and techniques available to alter an image: filters, exposures, artificial lighting, darkroom processes, computer editing, multiple images, distorted lenses, AI, paint, and more. Given this flexibility, anyone who takes a picture with the intent to express something can be considered a fine art photographer, including minimalists!
I need to stop this in mid video. I hope you understand that in addition to giving insight to Art photography, you are sharing a much appreciated understanding of the history of photography. Thanks
Well after listening until the end I’m not sure I could identify what “fine Art photography “ Really is, but enjoyed your talk, and hearing your ideas; Lots to think about, for sure.
Thanks for your comment John! As I have mentioned, defining fine art photography is tricky because it's so subjective. I'm glad you enjoyed the talk. Regards Martin
Hi Martin thx for clearing this up, I'm defiantly looking forward to becoming one of your students as one has to continue to learn or one will stagnate as even Ansel Adams evolved and one only does that through learning and I can't think of a better or know of a better teacher than you, so thx again for sharing your wisdom but if I could make a request for a future video it would be the topic og Limited Editions. As pricing my work has been the main reason why I have never attempted to sell it so is the amount of copies I would offer as once again theres no rules is it 1, 5-10, 25, 50-100 and or are there different amounts per copy depending on the size. like 5 x 10x180 but 10 x 90x60...
I believe that photography is indeed art, I think the definition of “art” is of itself justifying photography as an art form. I think the gradual access to photography since its invention gave some of those that were immersed in other visual art forms like paintings to dismiss photography simply because anyone could take a photograph so to speak. I believe that many artists sketched scenes to later turn into paintings, say if JMW turner had an iPhone he’d surely have been tempted to capture a scene as a part of his process. I look at a picture by anyone and it affects me, that’s art I feel.
I completely agree with you. Photography is undeniably an art form. The definition of art itself justifies photography's place within it. The democratization of photography might have led some traditional artists to dismiss it, but that doesn't diminish its artistic value.
Photographers, along with dentists, are the two professions never satisfied with what they do. Every dentist would like to be a doctor and inside every photographer is a painter trying to get out- Pablo Picaso
Well Done Martin .....There are some RUclips channels that need to take a listen to what You have to say.... they seem to believe that if you do long exposures with water in the Image ... It is Fine Art .... Excellent video Sir... I really enjoy your videos...
Hi Sam, thank you so much for your kind words! I'm glad you enjoyed the video and found value in the discussion. It's still important to recognise that fine art photography encompasses a wide range of styles and techniques. Regards Martin
I still feel the rules of composition and technical photographic control are important, serving as a foundation rather than a ceiling. While they provide guidance, it's essential to push boundaries and explore beyond them to unleash creativity
Yes, that's correct! besides the few I mentioned in my discussion, many other artists embraced photography as part of their workflow. Norman Rockwell, known for his iconic illustrations depicting American life, often utilised photography as part of his creative process. He would stage scenes with models and props, carefully composing the elements to achieve the desired narrative and emotional impact in his paintings.
Hi Martin.. I thought the Flatiron was beautiful, but this guy Leonard Missone is even more beautiful..LOL.. Absolutely outstanding. The 3rd photo of the many carts in the street.. How can that not be called art ??
I agree with you, Leonard Missone's work, and his dedication to his unique style, especially shooting into the light and capturing atmospheric scenes, showcases his visionary approach to photography. Missone's mastery with darkroom techniques and retouching, truly set him apart as an artist. His ability to find beauty and artistry in everyday scenes, like the photo of the carts in the street you mentioned, highlights his keen eye for composition and storytelling. Missone's work undoubtedly deserves recognition and appreciation for its artistic merit and technical excellence.
Hi AJ, thank you for your comment. Absolutely, you're spot on! While art is indeed subjective and personal preference plays a significant role, the societal context and collective opinion also shape our understanding of what constitutes 'art.' It's this delicate balance between individual interpretation and societal norms that makes the art world so dynamic and intriguing. Regards Martin
Photography lacks the directness of painting and drawing. A layer of technology (the camera) stands between the photographer and the image. This fact is reflected in the prices photographs fetch.
Hi Robert, thank you for your comment. A significant factor in the pricing difference between photography and painting is that paintings are original artworks, each one a unique creation. In contrast, photographs can be easily duplicated, which affects their market value. While it's true that a layer of technology (the camera) exists between the photographer and the image, it's important to remember that the artistic vision and skill behind the camera are just as vital. Both mediums have their unique qualities and artistic merits, but the ease of reproduction in photography does play a role in the price difference. Kind regards Martin
It can be difficult to understand for people that have not studied art and photography at an accredited university art school. So here goes. :) Photography is not an art. Photography is a medium. Paint is also a medium. Photography and paint being media can be used to produce art. Not all photography is art. Photography can be a record of an event. Which is not art. Forensic photography is definitely not fine art. There are many arts, Fine art being one of them, there's commercial art, advertising art. etc These are called ancillary arts because the purpose is to communicate an object or event for a utilitarian purpose, to sell a product etc. Fine art which is a mistranslation of "Pure Art" is art who's only purpose is to function and stand alone as a work of art. No other purpose. So photography, which is a medium can be used to produce fine art. This could be described as a fine art photograph. Fine art photographs and fine art in general does not have any particular look or appearance or medium. It can be color, black and white film, digital anything. Remember it is a mistranslation and misunderstanding of the term "pure art". It is fine art because of the creators intent and its purpose. Not because of it's appearance. Jeff Koons is a contemporary fine artist. He makes fine art using balloons. Balloons in and of themselves are not art.
Agreed Jon...Photography, like paint, is indeed a medium. Its classification as art depends on the creator's intent and purpose. Not all photography qualifies as fine art-documentary or forensic photography, for instance, serves different functions. Fine art, sometimes misunderstood as "pure art," exists solely for its own sake, without any utilitarian purpose. It can be created using any medium, including photography, regardless of its appearance. The key is the intent behind its creation. As you mentioned, artists like Jeff Koons demonstrate that even unconventional materials can be used to create fine art. So, it’s the creator's vision and purpose that define fine art, not the medium or the appearance of the work. Kind regards, Martin
@@MartinOsner You got it! Fine Art has nothing to do with appearance or medium. It would be better and easier to understand if we called it "Pure Art" which is a better definition. Which is what it was supposed to be called in the first place.
What if its not binary? What if it can be both? Was Michelangelo acting as an artist, or a craftsman, or both when he painted the Sixtine Chapel? - Craft requires predictable and repeatable outcomes, art has the freedom to take risks, leave things to chance. - Craft is client driven, art is driven by the creator They don't exclude each other, hence it ends up in the eye of the beholder is more the one or the other, but it sure isn't binary.
You make an excellent point! Michelangelo's work on the Sistine Chapel embodies both artistry and craftsmanship. Craft involves skill and precision, yielding predictable results, while art embraces creativity and risk. These elements can coexist, blending the boundaries between art and craft. Ultimately, it's up to the viewer to interpret the balance between the two. It's definitely not a binary distinction.
It is a lot of things that are really interesting when it comes to art.. I have been watching a lot of videos from the auction houses.. a lot of art being sold for millions, I don’t know, there are also videos online explaining the tax benefits and the possibility of money laundering through buying art.. lets say a photographer like Peter Lik that sold «Ghost» as a pr stunt would sell this photo to a friend.. the friend could benefit by getting lower tax and Peter Lik would get a massive PR value for selling this photo as the photo with the highest price ever. Lets say it is done, how difficult is it for these people with money to do something like that to lower their own tax and at the same time give Peter Lik PR that he couldn’t possibly get in any other way. I have no idea what happened, just saying it is possible.
Hi Jan, You've touched on some complex and often controversial aspects of the art world, particularly regarding the valuation and sale of artworks. Indeed, art can serve as a vehicle for various financial strategies, including tax optimisation and potentially even money laundering, due to its subjective valuation and sometimes opaque transactions. In the scenario you've outlined, where a photographer like Peter Lik sells a photo to a friend for a high price, there could be potential tax benefits for both parties involved, as well as significant PR value for Lik. However, executing such a transaction would likely require careful legal and financial planning to ensure compliance with tax laws & regulations to avoid investigation. But I think in todays world, ethics and honesty are not on the top of the agenda within society, and very little surprises one anymore. But to be fair one is a innocent until proven guilty. While it's true that the art market can be susceptible to manipulation and exploitation for financial gain, it's also important to note that many legitimate transactions occur within the art world, driven by genuine appreciation for artistic expression and cultural value. Regards Martin
Fine Art photography is taken by many idiots to be about creating a ‘look’, and then they crown themselves as ‘fine art photographers’ if they think they’ve achieved it. But of course fine art is when art becomes intellectual, the artist has reasoning, it’s about something which they can articulate. It hardly matters what it looks like, Warhols soup cans are fine art as much as a Leonardo, they articulate an idea. Rarely so with anybody who anoints themselves as a fine artist, if you ‘do’ fine art photography you are prejudging art, it’s only your peers who can crown you.
@@janradtke8318 How enigmatic, but the wise man said 'if you consider art to be a ten minute exposure sooner or later a dog is going to piss on your tripod leg'.
Hi Steve, Your perspective on the distinction between fine art photography and mere aestheticism is insightful. Indeed, true fine art transcends surface appearances and delves into deeper intellectual and conceptual realms. The ability to articulate ideas and provoke thought distinguishes fine art from mere visual appeal. While the label of 'fine art photographer' is often self-assumed, true recognition within the artistic community comes from those who acknowledge the depth and significance of an artist's work. Ultimately, it's the depth behind the image that defines its status as fine art. Regards Martin
With the arrival of the Internet, due to usage and abusage, the meaning of words are becoming more and more corrupt. "Art" is a perfect example of that. Art is never really the finished work, regardless of whatever the medium is. Art is simply a human ability to do what is required or desired. It is a human skill. Art is not a photographer shooting off loads of film one frame after another in the hope of capturing something good. It is recognising what is good and knowing what to set up in order to obtain the correct result. The finished work testifies the artist's skill. Within itself, Art knows no morals, and as people have varied opinions on that, what is Fine depends on the views of each individual. As such, it has no real meaning which is why there is seemingly so much confusion about it. Fine Art is therefore a nonsense. When it comes to the human figure, some photographers hold to the deluded view that if it isn't monochrome then it isn't "Fine Art." ! So Fine Art can be an attempt by the artist to have their work recognised as being a work of Art.
Hi Steve, your perspective on the evolving meaning of art in the digital age is thought-provoking. While the internet has undoubtedly influenced how we perceive and create art, it's important to recognise that art's essence remains subjective and multifaceted. Indeed, art encompasses more than just the finished product-it embodies the artist's skill, intention, and the viewer's interpretation. The concept of 'Fine Art' may indeed be contentious, as it's often shaped by individual perspectives and societal norms. However, this diversity of opinions is what makes art so rich and dynamic. Whether it's a photographer striving for monochrome perfection or an artist pushing boundaries, the quest for recognition and meaning in art is an enduring "never ending" journey. Regards Martin
@@MartinOsner Hi Martin. Thank you for your reply. If we go to an Art Gallery, we might see on its walls paintings considered by "experts" to be "Fine Art" A child can go in to the gallery and can see a painting of Leda and the Swan. To that young mind it is an image of a woman having a sexual encounter with a swan. The story will need to be explained. But is the story just an excuse to serve up bestiality? So even though well crafted, the image isn't so fine after all. It may gain a space when a nude photograph may be denied one. The nude may be labelled obscene. Also on the wall might be a picture of a man being executed by firing squad. It is a case of things that should not be are allowed but what has every right to be may be protested about. That shows the sickness that exists in society. Then there is the photographer who insists that if it isn't monochrome it isn't "Fine Art". The view is actually an insult to those who much prefer the wonders of colour. Kind regards to you in return, and thank you.
@stevejones1682 You raise important points about the subjective nature of art and the contradictions in societal perceptions. Art can evoke different interpretations and reactions, and what's considered fine art by some may be seen differently by others. The insistence on monochrome photography as the only true form of fine art overlooks the beauty of colour photography. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and starting this conversation.
@@MartinOsner thank you for that. If i may further - A practice from when I was a child - and we still see the practice today, even on youtube, images with dots or whatever to cover what is seemingly offensive. To my mind that practice is offensive, not only that but is obscene as it furthers what is an unhealthy regard towards a person's own body. Some can't even go to the doctor if needed due to that ill lesson. Some gain an unhealthy idea that it is ok to go flashing in public. Neither attitude has a healthy regard. It is sad that some can't see the beauty of the nude figure due to having an unhealthy regard. As i see it, a healthy body is likely to be a beautiful body. It seems to be that falsehood is encouraged and what has every right to be is not. I could go on, and I nearly did, but I'll leave it there for now.
Thank you, Jann, for your comment. Just to clarify, I'm not a photographer but an artist who uses photography as part of my workflow. My work is subjective and designed to appeal to a select audience, which I am very comfortable with. It's all about creating art that resonates deeply with those who appreciate it. Regards Martin
Fine art photography is bs b&w minimalist landscape with long exposure water lol no texture no creativity a filter applied to a document photography. They should stick to weddings
@MartinOsner Sure, Martin. Some years back I supported my partner during her return to Uni on a Fine Arts degree. It became apparent that they were more interested in what the 'students' said about their 'artwork' than about the artistic value of the work itself. My then partner offered a work for her final exam that was both creative, unique to her quite unique life experience, expressive of the point, and well crafted. She received a grudging 2:1 pass. Her friend did the ubiquitous Toilet in the centre of the room thing and said some 'shit' about it that was expected of her by the bloody insufferable, naff pc tutors, and recieved a 1:1. The whole course was politically biased and 'woke' as a green poppy. I was and remain unimpressed.
@grahampovey8073 Thanks for sharing, now I understand. It's disappointing to hear about your partner's experience with the Fine Arts degree program. Artistic expression should be valued based on creativity and individual experience, rather than conforming to specific ideologies. Regards Martin
@@MartinOsner entirely agree. The 'tutors' were a bunch of narcissistic morons in my studied opinion. Particularly considering my then partner was no novice. She already had works displayed worldwide in embassies and in private homes. She had no need to mimic the arty -farty fadists so loved by them.
Photography was "cleared" as an art around the 70s of the twentieth century, at least in the United States. This Mr. Osner should at least study a little more. For the rest he has a crude and childish vision not only of photography but also of art. How sad...
In your opinion, I am not capable of fine art photography. To me, that sounds a bit elitist. The problem is that I am neurodiverse. Google it. Elements of my neurodiversity are mainly giftedness and autism, the latter has elements of ADHD and OCD, and let's add in trauma resulting from being subject to bullying, my mother dying with dementia, my wife suffering from PD and living in care, beyond my reach. I don't understand composition, though others say mine is good. I see no story in still photography. Nor emotion, mood. To me, a good photograph is one I like. If you dislike the same photo, it's a bad photo. Both conditions can, and do, exist concurrently. I make photos to please me, so your dislike is unimportant. Even so, I do value others' good opinion of my photography. I still ask what? Why? How? What happens if? and so on. It's likely that leads me to putting my camera in unconventional places and making photographs quite unlike anyone else makes. I make photos. They are informed by inspection, by asking "How should I photograph you?" and by experience. Often I need one shot, one second. Photography is an act of creation.
Thank you for your comment. No, I am not imposing my opinion on anyone in this discussion, however, you do raise important points. It seems like you have a deeply personal approach to photography that is informed by your neuro-diversity and life experiences. Your perspective challenges conventional notions of fine art photography and highlights the subjective nature of artistic expression. Your emphasis on personal enjoyment and satisfaction in your work is refreshing and reminds us that art is ultimately about self-expression and fulfilment. While some may label your work as not fitting traditional criteria for fine art photography, your ability to create meaningful images that resonate with you is what truly matters. Your journey as a photographer is inherently valuable, regardless of how it aligns with established standards or expectations.
I was a wedding and portrait photographer for 25 years. In 2015 I became a fine art photographer, but today I just call myself an artist. I'm a painter as well, but it's my photography that is the mainstay of my artworks. You see the camera is just another tool like a paintbrush to me. I'm never recording what I see in the viewfinder instead I am envisioning my creativity within the frame pre and post production. My images are creations not recordings to see beyond the obvious, to put my own stamp on the scene I'm photographing that defines what a fine art photographer means to me. Seeing beyond the obvious towards a creative vision and a unique interpretation.
Hi Simon, your journey from photographer to artist is inspiring. I am pleased to hear that you to see the camera as a tool for creative expression, akin to a paintbrush. Regards Martin
@@MartinOsner
I love your work. I also became a painter during lockdown, but my strengths lie with a camera. I have a number of friends who are painters and they see me equally as an artist. I think sometimes we fine art photographers often question if we are artists. We are without a doubt true artists.
This is by far the best explanation on fine art photography I've heard.
Wow, thanks! Much appreciated!
The first video I watched about Fine Art Photography claimed that you had to use black and white, ND filters and time exposure. Your explanation I found to be a bit more sensible. Thank you.
I think they meant Wall Art :)
@@dylangarcia3696 If they did, they called Fine Art.
Hi Andrew, it's interesting how different sources can offer contrasting perspectives on what constitutes fine art photography. This highlights the depths of this discussion. I'm glad my explanation resonated with you more. You're welcome!
@@MartinOsner Just 16 seconds in, but the questions you asked really strike me as philosophical.
@@MartinOsner What you said about the definition that fine art photography is a style of photography is valid, but I'd add it is also circular. Strip away all the adjectives and it is basically saying art is art. Someone could ask me what an apple is. If I say an apple is an apple that it technically true, but the person asking about what an apple is obviously doesn't know what an apple is or they would not be asking so me telling them an apple is an apple, while technically true, leaves the person who asked that question no more informed than when they started. If I explained what type of fruit it was or, better yet, handed them an apple then some information is actually being imparted.
So glad you incorporated Stieglitz into your talk. The struggle to get photography accepted as art is important historically and to show that this topic is far from new. I’ve reflected on this topic for 20+ years and still haven’t finished my thinking.
Hi Jim, I'm glad you appreciated the mention of Stieglitz and the historical struggle of getting photography accepted as art. Stieglitz is a testament to the richness and depth of photography as an art form.!
@@MartinOsner Indeed. His intimate portraits of Georgia O’Keefe are beautiful love poems.
A lot of people mistake minimalism for fine art photography, and it's easy to see why, but the confusion is even more complicated as fine art photography are simply defined as images created in line with the vision of the artist, and in our domain using photography as a medium for creative expression. The goal of fine art photography is to express an idea, a message, or an emotion but it then gets even more confusing as you can alter an image from anything to anything using anything you like to create it For example: filters, long or short exposures, artificial lighting, darkroom, computer, multiple images, distorted lenses, AI, paint, (as a Pro I used to retouch transparencies, in fact we all did). So with all that in mind everyone who ever takes a picture is essentially a fine art photographer - even minimalists!!
You raise an excellent point. Many people confuse minimalism with fine art photography, and it's understandable. However, fine art photography is defined by images created according to the artist's vision, using photography as a medium for creative expression. The goal is to convey an idea, message, or emotion. The confusion grows because there are so many tools and techniques available to alter an image: filters, exposures, artificial lighting, darkroom processes, computer editing, multiple images, distorted lenses, AI, paint, and more. Given this flexibility, anyone who takes a picture with the intent to express something can be considered a fine art photographer, including minimalists!
@@MartinOsner 100% - I think the important thing is for us to enjoy photography - both as an image maker and as an audience member
Incredible perspective on this subject! Such great wisdom expressed in this discussion! I always appreciate your insight into this.
Thank you!!
Glad you enjoyed it, and thank you for your kind words. Regards Martin
I need to stop this in mid video. I hope you understand that in addition to giving insight to Art photography, you are sharing a much appreciated understanding of the history of photography. Thanks
Thanks for sharing John! kind regards, Martin
Well after listening until the end I’m not sure I could identify what “fine Art photography “ Really is, but enjoyed your talk, and hearing your ideas; Lots to think about, for sure.
Thanks for your comment John! As I have mentioned, defining fine art photography is tricky because it's so subjective. I'm glad you enjoyed the talk. Regards Martin
Hi Martin thx for clearing this up, I'm defiantly looking forward to becoming one of your students as one has to continue to learn or one will stagnate as even Ansel Adams evolved and one only does that through learning and I can't think of a better or know of a better teacher than you, so thx again for sharing your wisdom but if I could make a request for a future video it would be the topic og Limited Editions. As pricing my work has been the main reason why I have never attempted to sell it so is the amount of copies I would offer as once again theres no rules is it 1, 5-10, 25, 50-100 and or are there different amounts per copy depending on the size. like 5 x 10x180 but 10 x 90x60...
I believe that photography is indeed art, I think the definition of “art” is of itself justifying photography as an art form. I think the gradual access to photography since its invention gave some of those that were immersed in other visual art forms like paintings to dismiss photography simply because anyone could take a photograph so to speak.
I believe that many artists sketched scenes to later turn into paintings, say if JMW turner had an iPhone he’d surely have been tempted to capture a scene as a part of his process.
I look at a picture by anyone and it affects me, that’s art I feel.
I completely agree with you. Photography is undeniably an art form. The definition of art itself justifies photography's place within it. The democratization of photography might have led some traditional artists to dismiss it, but that doesn't diminish its artistic value.
Photographers, along with dentists, are the two professions never satisfied with what they do. Every dentist would like to be a doctor and inside every photographer is a painter trying to get out- Pablo Picaso
Well Done Martin .....There are some RUclips channels that need to take a listen to what You have to say.... they seem to believe that if you do long exposures with water in the Image ... It is Fine Art .... Excellent video Sir... I really enjoy your videos...
Hi Sam, thank you so much for your kind words! I'm glad you enjoyed the video and found value in the discussion. It's still important to recognise that fine art photography encompasses a wide range of styles and techniques. Regards Martin
Thanks Martin from Canada.
My pleasure Rick!
Be brave,,, Break the rules of photography !
I still feel the rules of composition and technical photographic control are important, serving as a foundation rather than a ceiling. While they provide guidance, it's essential to push boundaries and explore beyond them to unleash creativity
Martin, great talk ,lots to think about.
Thanks John, much appreciated!
that Edward J Steichen photo is outstanding.. I want one !
Almost ahead of its time
Absolutely, that Edward J. Steichen photo is indeed outstanding! I would love to have a piece like that in my own collection too.
Norman Rockwell also used photography as part of his workflow when creating his illustrations.
Yes, that's correct! besides the few I mentioned in my discussion, many other artists embraced photography as part of their workflow. Norman Rockwell, known for his iconic illustrations depicting American life, often utilised photography as part of his creative process. He would stage scenes with models and props, carefully composing the elements to achieve the desired narrative and emotional impact in his paintings.
Hi Martin.. I thought the Flatiron was beautiful, but this guy Leonard Missone is even more beautiful..LOL.. Absolutely outstanding.
The 3rd photo of the many carts in the street.. How can that not be called art ??
I agree with you, Leonard Missone's work, and his dedication to his unique style, especially shooting into the light and capturing atmospheric scenes, showcases his visionary approach to photography. Missone's mastery with darkroom techniques and retouching, truly set him apart as an artist. His ability to find beauty and artistry in everyday scenes, like the photo of the carts in the street you mentioned, highlights his keen eye for composition and storytelling. Missone's work undoubtedly deserves recognition and appreciation for its artistic merit and technical excellence.
Well said Martin. Well done on a very good presentation
Glad you enjoyed it Francois!
Art is what people consider art. Idem dito fine art photographie.
Hi AJ, thank you for your comment. Absolutely, you're spot on! While art is indeed subjective and personal preference plays a significant role, the societal context and collective opinion also shape our understanding of what constitutes 'art.' It's this delicate balance between individual interpretation and societal norms that makes the art world so dynamic and intriguing. Regards Martin
Thanks Martin. Another great look into FAP.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Photography lacks the directness of painting and drawing. A layer of technology (the camera) stands between the photographer and the image. This fact is reflected in the prices photographs fetch.
Hi Robert, thank you for your comment. A significant factor in the pricing difference between photography and painting is that paintings are original artworks, each one a unique creation. In contrast, photographs can be easily duplicated, which affects their market value. While it's true that a layer of technology (the camera) exists between the photographer and the image, it's important to remember that the artistic vision and skill behind the camera are just as vital. Both mediums have their unique qualities and artistic merits, but the ease of reproduction in photography does play a role in the price difference. Kind regards Martin
It can be difficult to understand for people that have not studied art and photography at an accredited university art school.
So here goes. :)
Photography is not an art. Photography is a medium.
Paint is also a medium.
Photography and paint being media can be used to produce art.
Not all photography is art. Photography can be a record of an event. Which is not art. Forensic photography is definitely not fine art.
There are many arts, Fine art being one of them, there's commercial art, advertising art. etc These are called ancillary arts because the purpose is to communicate an object or event for a utilitarian purpose, to sell a product etc.
Fine art which is a mistranslation of "Pure Art" is art who's only purpose is to function and stand alone as a work of art. No other purpose.
So photography, which is a medium can be used to produce fine art. This could be described as a fine art photograph.
Fine art photographs and fine art in general does not have any particular look or appearance or medium.
It can be color, black and white film, digital anything.
Remember it is a mistranslation and misunderstanding of the term "pure art".
It is fine art because of the creators intent and its purpose.
Not because of it's appearance.
Jeff Koons is a contemporary fine artist. He makes fine art using balloons. Balloons in and of themselves are not art.
Agreed Jon...Photography, like paint, is indeed a medium. Its classification as art depends on the creator's intent and purpose. Not all photography qualifies as fine art-documentary or forensic photography, for instance, serves different functions.
Fine art, sometimes misunderstood as "pure art," exists solely for its own sake, without any utilitarian purpose. It can be created using any medium, including photography, regardless of its appearance. The key is the intent behind its creation. As you mentioned, artists like Jeff Koons demonstrate that even unconventional materials can be used to create fine art.
So, it’s the creator's vision and purpose that define fine art, not the medium or the appearance of the work. Kind regards, Martin
@@MartinOsner You got it!
Fine Art has nothing to do with appearance or medium.
It would be better and easier to understand if we called it "Pure Art" which is a better definition. Which is what it was supposed to be called in the first place.
Is fine art photography fact or fiction. It is a fact. I've seen it.
What if its not binary? What if it can be both? Was Michelangelo acting as an artist, or a craftsman, or both when he painted the Sixtine Chapel?
- Craft requires predictable and repeatable outcomes, art has the freedom to take risks, leave things to chance.
- Craft is client driven, art is driven by the creator
They don't exclude each other, hence it ends up in the eye of the beholder is more the one or the other, but it sure isn't binary.
You make an excellent point! Michelangelo's work on the Sistine Chapel embodies both artistry and craftsmanship. Craft involves skill and precision, yielding predictable results, while art embraces creativity and risk. These elements can coexist, blending the boundaries between art and craft. Ultimately, it's up to the viewer to interpret the balance between the two. It's definitely not a binary distinction.
It is a lot of things that are really interesting when it comes to art.. I have been watching a lot of videos from the auction houses.. a lot of art being sold for millions, I don’t know, there are also videos online explaining the tax benefits and the possibility of money laundering through buying art.. lets say a photographer like Peter Lik that sold «Ghost» as a pr stunt would sell this photo to a friend.. the friend could benefit by getting lower tax and Peter Lik would get a massive PR value for selling this photo as the photo with the highest price ever. Lets say it is done, how difficult is it for these people with money to do something like that to lower their own tax and at the same time give Peter Lik PR that he couldn’t possibly get in any other way. I have no idea what happened, just saying it is possible.
Hi Jan, You've touched on some complex and often controversial aspects of the art world, particularly regarding the valuation and sale of artworks. Indeed, art can serve as a vehicle for various financial strategies, including tax optimisation and potentially even money laundering, due to its subjective valuation and sometimes opaque transactions.
In the scenario you've outlined, where a photographer like Peter Lik sells a photo to a friend for a high price, there could be potential tax benefits for both parties involved, as well as significant PR value for Lik. However, executing such a transaction would likely require careful legal and financial planning to ensure compliance with tax laws & regulations to avoid investigation. But I think in todays world, ethics and honesty are not on the top of the agenda within society, and very little surprises one anymore. But to be fair one is a innocent until proven guilty.
While it's true that the art market can be susceptible to manipulation and exploitation for financial gain, it's also important to note that many legitimate transactions occur within the art world, driven by genuine appreciation for artistic expression and cultural value. Regards Martin
Fine Art photography is taken by many idiots to be about creating a ‘look’, and then they crown themselves as ‘fine art photographers’ if they think they’ve achieved it. But of course fine art is when art becomes intellectual, the artist has reasoning, it’s about something which they can articulate. It hardly matters what it looks like, Warhols soup cans are fine art as much as a Leonardo, they articulate an idea. Rarely so with anybody who anoints themselves as a fine artist, if you ‘do’ fine art photography you are prejudging art, it’s only your peers who can crown you.
It‘s not that simple.
@@janradtke8318 How enigmatic, but the wise man said 'if you consider art to be a ten minute exposure sooner or later a dog is going to piss on your tripod leg'.
Hi Steve, Your perspective on the distinction between fine art photography and mere aestheticism is insightful. Indeed, true fine art transcends surface appearances and delves into deeper intellectual and conceptual realms. The ability to articulate ideas and provoke thought distinguishes fine art from mere visual appeal. While the label of 'fine art photographer' is often self-assumed, true recognition within the artistic community comes from those who acknowledge the depth and significance of an artist's work. Ultimately, it's the depth behind the image that defines its status as fine art. Regards Martin
With the arrival of the Internet, due to usage and abusage, the meaning of words are becoming more and more corrupt. "Art" is a perfect example of that. Art is never really the finished work, regardless of whatever the medium is. Art is simply a human ability to do what is required or desired. It is a human skill. Art is not a photographer shooting off loads of film one frame after another in the hope of capturing something good. It is recognising what is good and knowing what to set up in order to obtain the correct result. The finished work testifies the artist's skill. Within itself, Art knows no morals, and as people have varied opinions on that, what is Fine depends on the views of each individual. As such, it has no real meaning which is why there is seemingly so much confusion about it. Fine Art is therefore a nonsense. When it comes to the human figure, some photographers hold to the deluded view that if it isn't monochrome then it isn't "Fine Art." ! So Fine Art can be an attempt by the artist to have their work recognised as being a work of Art.
Hi Steve, your perspective on the evolving meaning of art in the digital age is thought-provoking. While the internet has undoubtedly influenced how we perceive and create art, it's important to recognise that art's essence remains subjective and multifaceted. Indeed, art encompasses more than just the finished product-it embodies the artist's skill, intention, and the viewer's interpretation. The concept of 'Fine Art' may indeed be contentious, as it's often shaped by individual perspectives and societal norms. However, this diversity of opinions is what makes art so rich and dynamic. Whether it's a photographer striving for monochrome perfection or an artist pushing boundaries, the quest for recognition and meaning in art is an enduring "never ending" journey. Regards Martin
@@MartinOsner Hi Martin. Thank you for your reply. If we go to an Art Gallery, we might see on its walls paintings considered by "experts" to be "Fine Art" A child can go in to the gallery and can see a painting of Leda and the Swan. To that young mind it is an image of a woman having a sexual encounter with a swan. The story will need to be explained. But is the story just an excuse to serve up bestiality? So even though well crafted, the image isn't so fine after all. It may gain a space when a nude photograph may be denied one. The nude may be labelled obscene. Also on the wall might be a picture of a man being executed by firing squad. It is a case of things that should not be are allowed but what has every right to be may be protested about. That shows the sickness that exists in society. Then there is the photographer who insists that if it isn't monochrome it isn't "Fine Art". The view is actually an insult to those who much prefer the wonders of colour. Kind regards to you in return, and thank you.
@stevejones1682 You raise important points about the subjective nature of art and the contradictions in societal perceptions. Art can evoke different interpretations and reactions, and what's considered fine art by some may be seen differently by others. The insistence on monochrome photography as the only true form of fine art overlooks the beauty of colour photography. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and starting this conversation.
@@MartinOsner thank you for that. If i may further - A practice from when I was a child - and we still see the practice today, even on youtube, images with dots or whatever to cover what is seemingly offensive. To my mind that practice is offensive, not only that but is obscene as it furthers what is an unhealthy regard towards a person's own body. Some can't even go to the doctor if needed due to that ill lesson. Some gain an unhealthy idea that it is ok to go flashing in public. Neither attitude has a healthy regard. It is sad that some can't see the beauty of the nude figure due to having an unhealthy regard. As i see it, a healthy body is likely to be a beautiful body. It seems to be that falsehood is encouraged and what has every right to be is not. I could go on, and I nearly did, but I'll leave it there for now.
He is a very good storyteller and salesman. But to be honest, I am not sure if he is a very good photographer ...
Thank you, Jann, for your comment. Just to clarify, I'm not a photographer but an artist who uses photography as part of my workflow. My work is subjective and designed to appeal to a select audience, which I am very comfortable with. It's all about creating art that resonates deeply with those who appreciate it. Regards Martin
Fine art photography is bs b&w minimalist landscape with long exposure water lol no texture no creativity a filter applied to a document photography. They should stick to weddings
I'm intrigued by your strong stance against fine art photography. Could you share more about why you feel this way?
So called 'Fine Art,' in my experience, is far from 'fine'.....
Hi Graham, thank you for your comment. I am intrigued. Could you please elaborate further? Regards Martin
@MartinOsner Sure, Martin. Some years back I supported my partner during her return to Uni on a Fine Arts degree. It became apparent that they were more interested in what the 'students' said about their 'artwork' than about the artistic value of the work itself. My then partner offered a work for her final exam that was both creative, unique to her quite unique life experience, expressive of the point, and well crafted. She received a grudging 2:1 pass. Her friend did the ubiquitous Toilet in the centre of the room thing and said some 'shit' about it that was expected of her by the bloody insufferable, naff pc tutors, and recieved a 1:1.
The whole course was politically biased and 'woke' as a green poppy.
I was and remain unimpressed.
@grahampovey8073 Thanks for sharing, now I understand. It's disappointing to hear about your partner's experience with the Fine Arts degree program. Artistic expression should be valued based on creativity and individual experience, rather than conforming to specific ideologies. Regards Martin
@@MartinOsner entirely agree. The 'tutors' were a bunch of narcissistic morons in my studied opinion. Particularly considering my then partner was no novice. She already had works displayed worldwide in embassies and in private homes. She had no need to mimic the arty -farty fadists so loved by them.
Photography was "cleared" as an art around the 70s of the twentieth century, at least in the United States.
This Mr. Osner should at least study a little more.
For the rest he has a crude and childish vision not only of photography but also of art. How sad...
In your opinion, I am not capable of fine art photography. To me, that sounds a bit elitist.
The problem is that I am neurodiverse. Google it.
Elements of my neurodiversity are mainly giftedness and autism, the latter has elements of ADHD and OCD, and let's add in trauma resulting from being subject to bullying, my mother dying with dementia, my wife suffering from PD and living in care, beyond my reach.
I don't understand composition, though others say mine is good.
I see no story in still photography. Nor emotion, mood. To me, a good photograph is one I like. If you dislike the same photo, it's a bad photo. Both conditions can, and do, exist concurrently. I make photos to please me, so your dislike is unimportant. Even so, I do value others' good opinion of my photography.
I still ask what? Why? How? What happens if? and so on. It's likely that leads me to putting my camera in unconventional places and making photographs quite unlike anyone else makes.
I make photos. They are informed by inspection, by asking "How should I photograph you?" and by experience. Often I need one shot, one second. Photography is an act of creation.
Thank you for your comment. No, I am not imposing my opinion on anyone in this discussion, however, you do raise important points. It seems like you have a deeply personal approach to photography that is informed by your neuro-diversity and life experiences. Your perspective challenges conventional notions of fine art photography and highlights the subjective nature of artistic expression. Your emphasis on personal enjoyment and satisfaction in your work is refreshing and reminds us that art is ultimately about self-expression and fulfilment. While some may label your work as not fitting traditional criteria for fine art photography, your ability to create meaningful images that resonate with you is what truly matters. Your journey as a photographer is inherently valuable, regardless of how it aligns with established standards or expectations.