Fine Art Photography – March 10, 2009
I hate the words fine art photography. And I think the main reason I
hate those words is because I have no idea what they mean. The words seem
so pretentious and grand, and unnecessarily so.
Some would argue that those words come from the need to differentiate
snapshots and commercial photography from the kind of photography intended
for museums and gallery walls. Others would say the words are meant to
designate photography as some vital form of art, as if calling something
art invariably makes it true.
I guess what bothers me is the infinitely wide range of photography that
is declared as fine art. All that work doesn’t fit neatly into a
little box and why should it? Still there seems to be some irresistible
need to define it.
But why can’t a photograph stand or fall on its own? Outside of its subject
matter, why does it need to be labeled at all? After all can’t a
snapshot be art? Can’t a fine art photograph be completely devoid
of artistic merit? Lines are crossed and blurred all the time, so why
have lines at all? Giving something a name doesn’t change its inherent
value except to a small minded few.
So why is there so little faith in the viewer to allow them to make up
their own mind? Why can’t they discover and interpret what’s
in front of their own eyes as they see fit? If a photograph is any good,
it will stand on its own, and people will recognize that fact. And it
won’t matter if that photograph is labeled as a snapshot or something
else entirely.
So hang a photograph on a wall and call it a portrait or a landscape
or a still life if you must, just don’t be so bold as to call it
art, let alone fine. Let the photograph stand or fall as it is and leave
that for the viewer to judge. Believe me, they’ll know.
|
