'Is photography art' is a fascinating question and one critical to how the value of photography is perceived in 2010 and beyond.It is difficult to define 'fine art photography' in terms of subject matter - which in essence is unrestricted: of more importance is the creative process followed. Fine art photography has to have considerable creative freedom attached to it which excludes most, if not all, commissioned work. With the creative freedom comes the luxury of time. It is unique in having no time deadline - no delivery date - so the image can be worked on for as long as the photographer feels appropriate; there need be no compromise. But at some point it has to be signed off - literally, the signature in the corner marks the transition from 'work in progress' to 'finished article', from adolescence to adulthood and from that point on, the piece of work stands alone.
But there are two more elements to a 'fine art' definition and the first is that the image must elicit an emotional response from the viewer. Crudely, this is demonstrated by a desire to buy and own but even in the broader sense an image without engagement is a failed image.
The second is its pedigree. It is one thing for the photographer to capture an image but did they own the process? The origination of subject matter, the capture, the post production and printing, the presentation to exacting standards... the greater sense of ownership by the artist of this process, the stronger the fine art pedigree. Do you think this is a fair summary - let me know what you think...
*written whilst enjoying the view of Lake Lucerne, 7.7.10
No comments:
Post a Comment