Pretty sure Jose Villa wrote a book about just that subject
I am not sure what it would mean. Better than average photos that you tell the client are "art"....
I try to stay away from typical names because they pigeon hole you into a niche you might not want to be in all the way.
It means photos that people would not normally buy, so they labeled it "art" and that's supposed to explain why it's out of focus, colors are off, lighting is overexposed or underexposed, and generally something that you would never hang on your wall except someone convinced you it's "art." Got to WPPI competition winners - there's a lot of them there... show them to any kid who hasn't been brainwashed into WPPI hocus-pocus about "art", and they'll say, "I could take better photos than that...."
stevez32 wrote:
It means shooting high end but intimate weddings of beautiful people with a Contax 645
you also need to use Fuji film, underate it, use Richards to develop and scan and then post your "art" into the Film Shooters group on FB. hahaha
why would anyone want to settle for "fine" art...?
why not "great" art or "amazing" art or "culturally significant" art....
You know the old saying "good enough for city work.." haha how about
"fine enough for wedding work.."
Tough crowd... would you guys as least agree that, to some extent, fine art wedding photography is "fine art" when it is deemed so by our peers (akin to the peer review process in the scientific literature)? For example, I would say what Sergio Mottola does is indeed produce fine art, and I presume there is a series of photographers that would agree.
MN_Migrant wrote:
Tough crowd... would you guys as least agree that, to some extent, fine art wedding photography is "fine art" when it is deemed so by our peers (akin to the peer review process in the scientific literature)? For example, I would say what Sergio Mottola does is indeed produce fine art, and I presume there is a series of photographers that would agree.
I don't have an opinion about Sergio. However I read an article in one of the popular photo mags a few months ago and they had a woman photographer that they were swooning over and all I could see was out of focus, poorly exposed, lens flared photos that had a desatured look.
MVSchenk wrote:
It means photos that people would not normally buy, so they labeled it "art" and that's supposed to explain why it's out of focus, colors are off, lighting is overexposed or underexposed, and generally something that you would never hang on your wall except someone convinced you it's "art." Got to WPPI competition winners - there's a lot of them there... show them to any kid who hasn't been brainwashed into WPPI hocus-pocus about "art", and they'll say, "I could take better photos than that...."
omg...lol
