What Defines a Fine Art Print?
Today I read an interesting thread over on dpreview.com. The original poster was asking for a “Definition of ‘Fine Art Print’.” It is a logical question, especially now that everyone seems to be cranking out photographs with their digital cameras and printers and calling them fine art prints. Many of the answers dealt with the technical aspects of printing and the materials used. These are important components, but they represent only part of the story. Besides, all fine art prints should be printed to archival standards, anyway.
So, what other qualities define a photograph as “fine art?” You could ask the same question of a sculpture or a painting, and, beyond inherent differences in each medium, I think the answer would be similar. While I do not pretend to have a definitive answer, I can offer some insight into why I consider some of my photographs as fine art in the hope that it may help you reach your own conclusion.
Defining what constitutes fine art is difficult, not only because it can seem subjective, but also because it depends on intangible or unquantifiable elements. If it were simple, no one would ever ask for a definition. Still, I would like to suggest four elements that define a work of fine art for me: perception, composition, voice, and story. Let me describe what I mean by each.
Perception
When I go out with my camera, I try to be open to my surroundings. I generally do not set a specific goal, like photographing bare trees, broken fences, or street people. And I rarely stage a photograph. I am more of a serendipitous photographer. That is, at some point in my wandering about – and this may sound bizarre – something will “ask” to be photographed. In truth, it helps to have taken photographs for years, because you develop an eye for subjects. Without that special sort of perception, it is difficult to capture meaningful pictures. I should add that, it is not just an eye for the physical world, but also for the emotional life that fills it. I don’t often photograph people, but I almost always look for subjects that imply the actions of people.
Composition
Once I find something that strikes me – or it finds me – I take a photograph. The composition is extremely important to me, though, frankly, I don’t spend a lot of time composing in camera. One of the benefits of an arts education and of taking lots of photographs is that you learn to see the framing even without the camera. Once the scene is in the viewfinder, you make some adjustments, but for the most part the work is done quickly. I do not mean to suggest that it is final, because I often will include more in the frame to give me more control when completing the composition for the final print. Cropping is a wonderful skill to master!
Story
This is the raison d’être of the photograph. Why did I take it? What was I thinking and feeling at the time? What story, in effect, is the final photograph going to tell me? All the futzing about in Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop is about getting the story out. But it doesn’t matter which photo editing software you use, just as it doesn’t matter which word processor you use. In fact, I would argue that it doesn’t often matter which camera you use or how many megapixels it has, as long as you can capture the essence of your subject. For me, developing the story is the challenge, and this is where most of the “art” comes in. It’s certainly where most of the time is spent.
Voice
Your voice is what you use to tell your story. In essence, it describes the unique properties that you bring to your art. It comes from within, but is influenced by our experience as well as our genetic “hard-wiring.” I find it influences all phases of my creative process. It influences how and what I photograph, how I compose an image, and it most definitely influences how I develop and print an image. Ultimately, it embodies what makes my work mine and possibly unique.
_
Synergy
Perception, composition, story, and voice each contribute to my final print. If I’ve worked diligently, the whole will be greater than the sum of the parts. In my mind, at least, the image above has become more than a photograph of a bunch of cranes and houses, more than technical processing skills, and certainly more than archival paper and ink. It must transcend to become something larger – to become a fine art print.
Those are my thoughts, though I imagine this is a topic I will come back to over time. Meanwhile, I would be very happy to hear what others have to add to the discussion.
thanks for sharing all these wonderful facts and thoughts.
Hi, Mark,
Since you made the effort to create this reply, I thought I’d make the effort to leave mine here. I now generally avoid trying to leave cogent replies on the site you mentioned, for some of the reasons I stated in my post there. Suffice to say that this topic, and the topic of art in general, tends to inflame the passions of certain people very negatively. It’s as though experimental forms, even art itself, is some kind of personal assault on their lives. Very peculiar.
I think what you have described in your post above is rather personal, which is fine, since this is your blog. I would like to add these non-personal thoughts:
1. Fine Art Print in one sense simply is another word for archival of the best quality. So here there is a marketing aspect to the term. I don’t see this as particularly incendiary—certainly it’s pretty innocuous as marketing terms go. Again, one has to wonder why the term generates such heat.
2. In the second sense, it describes an object, in this case photographic, the primary intent of which is to exist in that vast space encompassed by the term art. This as opposed to something that was intended to be documentary or commercial in the sense of advertising images. The term doesn’t dictate that the object is an inherently excellent art object—its worth as such is another matter entirely, and very much subject to the overall conclusions of society as a whole over time. Furthermore, there is plenty of documentary or commercial work that winds up transcending its utilitarian intent to become art through its inherent excellence and that aforementioned societal acceptance.
It seems to me that these 2 simple tests basically cover the subject precisely. There is no need to take the next step into issues of real worth, monetary value, taste, and a host of other evaluative issues. All of that is far more complex—not unanswerable, but definitely a discussion beyond the term in question.
As to why this issue seems to engender such hostility from a certain sector of the populace—-ultimately I put that down to the parlous state of art education in the U.S. and now increasingly Canada, the UK, and Europe. It is pathetic that arts education basically stops at the performance level and never moves on into the history of the arts. Few people actually become artists, and only those who have demonstrated talents and/or affinities for the practice go on to receive any education in the arts whatsoever. Everyone else stops more or less in secondary school. And these people go on to fill the vast majority of occupations in the world, and many go on to become very successful pillars of the community. Yet it is those very people who will ultimately wind up on the boards of arts organizations, and without a shred of more advanced non-practice arts education! It’s a real insanity. And I am willing to bet that the negativity engendered by the discussion of “art” would diminish in direct proportion to the amount of better arts education received. The heat would then be more properly directed into discussions of what is the ultimate worth (financial worth is a separate issue, often having nothing to do with the inherent worth) of an object in question. That’s a much better, as in productive, discussion entirely.
Thank you for that wonderful reply, Tex. I believe you were better able to cut to the core of the matter. Being informed, whether it is through formal education or otherwise devoting one’s time to understanding a subject, would help those discussing these topics online be more constructive – or, perhaps in this case, preclude such discussions! I appreciate your taking the time to make a considered response.
This topic is like a very deep well, and I’m not entirely sure it has a bottom.
To me it’s like asking, “What makes a good bottle of wine?” You have all the textbook answers about grape varieties, growing regions, weather patterns, soil and drainage, sugar content, acidity, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Ultimately, the question is answered after the cork is removed, the wine is poured and its aroma and taste caress the nose and tongue. The determination of good or bad, and to what degree, will be different for each individual.
The answers to the questions: “What is art?” and “What is fine art?” will have a direct impact on defining what constitutes a “fine art print”, and I’m afraid the answers to those questions will be every bit as elusive as the answer to the wine question.
I too have to scratch my head in wonder at some of the offerings made under the “Fine Art Print” banner. For my part, I was nodding my head in agreement right down the line while reading your post. I thought Tex Andrews made some good points as well.
There is no final arbiter; and, I would have to question anyone that would set themselves up as such, for ultimately, is not what constitutes “art” and “fine art” a personal decision?
Perhaps the only stipulation for a “fine art print” designation should be one of archival quality. But then, who’s going to do the stipulating?
Nice post! I really like your posting.
i will come back to read more of your posts.
specially about What Defines a Fine Art Print?
Cheers