"It is a gratification to me to know that I am ignorant of art, and ignorant also of surgery. Because people who understand art find nothing in pictures but blemishes, and surgeons and anatomists see no beautiful women in all their lives, but only a ghastly stack of bones with Latin names to them, and a network of nerves and muscles and tissues."
"Academy of Design," letter by Mark Twain to San Francisco Alta California, July 28, 1867
williamkazak wrote:
Quit reading forums and shoot some pictures. Practice fill flash.
Not sure why you're answering a question posed in November of last year.
I guess the good news is that if you use fill flash, especially if it's on a bracket, no one will ever mistake your wedding photography as being fine art.
I think if you have an image that can stand on its own narrative. People who have never met the couple but feel strongly about the photo then purchase it for their homes. Fine art means you're not creating it specifically for the bride and groom alone.
Anyway, I know this is an old thread but I think Fer's much mentioned headless bride walking opposite the dog picture is a good example. To me, that is.
In my opinion, I find it to be classic, timeless, no funky coloring. I often times think photojournalistic style on film with 400TX, or something like that. Natural light. Simple. Well posed and choreographed when necessary.
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...."
No different than people calling their work PJ or documentary or anything else. It's just a catch-phrase/buzz word.
Typically when I see "fine art" associated with wedding photography I know the person is likely A) charging a good and appropriate amount of money for their work, B) may likely be shooting some or all film as it was kind of coined by Jose Villa and then copied, and C) takes a lot of pride in their work.
I tell clients my work is a blend of fine art and documentary style photography, which is to say that it's a mix of my vision combined with trying to capture the story of the day. Just fancy words. Nothing more.
It is overused but if it weren't it would be something I would like to achieve. Basically it would mean that every wedding would have some photo that anyone would want on their walls as art.
DmitriM wrote:
I am just curious to see if there's a definition for that. Examples?
The term fine art (or even art itself) when applied to wedding photography is more of a marketing slogan than anything else .. by their nature weddings are served by portraitists and / or photojournalists.
I've seen some wedding photographers create substantial works from their wedding portraits, and it seems everyone has their own definition of art so at some point the label "fine art" will be applied. The real question is by who.
Any tips?