[Leica] My artist's statement

[chris at chriscrawfordphoto.com (Chris Crawford)]

That's because sculpture, painting, and drawing on paper no longer have
significant commercial uses. That is all done on computers now. Even
commercial sculpture (designing things like car bodies, etc.) is done on
computers now (3D modeling software). Photography has commercial (eg.
Product photography, wedding photography), fine art (landscapes, etc.),
and non-artistic/non-commercial uses (snapshots of your kids and cats).

Even before computers, terms like "Illustration" were used for drawing and
painting used commercially. We don't have a term for commercial
photography that doesn't include the word 'photography' so we still need a
term for artistic photography. Like it or not, the term accepted by the
people who's opinion matters to artists (Buyers, critics, historians,
curators, and sellers of art) is "Fine Art." I'd like to point out that
the term is used for all other forms of fine art too; that's why people
who earn degrees in art have a degree in "Fine Art". My diploma from
Indiana University says "Bachelor of Fine Arts." It would say that no
matter what kind of art I did, not just because I majored in photography.
The art program I completed was not a commercial photo or commercial art
program, it concentrated exclusively on making art for personal
expression. Fine Art.

Also art galleries that sell art often have the term Fine Art in their
names. So do museums, though many just have the word Art without the fine
(but many art museums show commercial art that is considered historically
important, like industrial design and advertising and illustration).

Is it 'odd' to to add the word Fine to art? Maybe, but it is harmless, and
there are FAR more important things to fight against in the world today.

-- 
Chris Crawford
Fine Art Photography
Fort Wayne, Indiana
260-437-8990

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com  My portfolio

http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com  My latest work!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Christopher-Crawford/48229272798
Become a fan on Facebook





On 1/3/12 9:43 PM, "George Lottermoser" <imagist3 at mac.com> wrote:

>On Jan 3, 2012, at 8:00 PM, Chris Crawford <chris at chriscrawfordphoto.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Ken, the term Fine Art has been used since the 1700s to distinguish art
>> done for personal expression from commercial art. I'm not sure why so
>>many
>> photographers have such a problem with it. Its just a name. Complaining
>> about it or trying to deconstruct it is not going to make it go away,
>> there's too much history and tradition behind it.
>
>agreed
>
>Though still a tad odd
>as used with photography;
>since we do not use that reference
>as a tag to painting, sculpture, drawing, etc.;
>which we generally assume to be "fine art;"
>and we differentiate that which is "not"
>with terms like commercial, illustrative, or functional;
>rather than the other way around.
>
>Obviously the lines separating these terms blur, move and/or overlap
>depending on the audience, artist and/or critic.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information