Fine Art America is the world's most powerful sales and marketing tool for photographers and visual artists.
Simply open an account, upload your images, set your prices for all our available products, and you're instantly in business! FAA provides you with an e-commerce website, fulfills your orders for you, and sends you your profits each month.
Duane...........your statement: "If Fine Art is the visual form of inspirational creativity, then the work of the visual artist is to inspire." is a premise based on the 'If"
In my case, I can't say it's my goal to 'inspire'.
I do think, though, that Fine Art is indeed 'inspired creativity"....there's a difference. Fine Art is created from inspiration, is how I see it. Whether or not it inspires artists, I don't know. The Masters inspire me......all on a personal level......Morandi the most, just fyi.
Thought I'd reply, seeing as you've had so many readers but no responses, yet..
I like both images, for different reasons each..........and personally prefer abstraction - it is inspirational, one has to go beyond the 'reality' and enjoy the 'essence'...but, that's another story.
Neither of those images constitute "Fine Art". What constitutes fine art is the artist behind the image. It's never about the creation, it's about the creator. It's the same with abstract art. Random nonsense does not make an abstraction.
I think it depends on each individual. Everyone has their own preference on what inspires them. Most abstracts I simply don't get and can study it for hours and never understand how an artist came up with it and the title. Once in a while I get lucky and understand it but not often. There are however abstracts that are visually eye appealing to me and I don't even need to understand it. As for realism in photography and then taking that photograph to a point of surreal I like both. I am a huge HDR fan and most people that use it today take it to a point of the image becoming a surreal image (Guilty) I love that look and it's very fitting for alot of images. I think with all honesty though when I see a painting I mean a TRUE painting ,not a digitally processed image given an oil painting filter, but a painting where the artist has used brushes and creates an image such as a Great White Egret like I saw on one of the groups earlier today by Phyllis Beiser I hope she won't mind my using this as an example since I'm praising it vs. the alternative. But this painting is inspiring to me because she put brush to paint to canvas controlling EVERY mark that goes onto that canvas every detail. I have shot many Great White Egrets and luckily I am able to control the background because I have never captured one flying past a background as beautiful as the one she has created here.
Hi Regnia -- Like you, most abstract artwork doesn't fly with me, but some really make sense. My first real canvas artwork was this busy surrealist painting I did over thirty years ago. The Birds of South Florida. Back then I used to paint on driftwood boards and used the sculptural value in the wood like a wood knot would became the sun or moon in a marine seascape scene. But now, most all of my artwork is photography based because I can control quality and quanity better than one original at a time.
Wendy -- that filtered image of "Alien Brothers" is truly a step outside the real world. Anybody seeing it has to smile and wonder what, who, where and why it was created.
Duane, Is "The Birds of South Florida" considered abstract? I guess I was moreso referring to the abstracts where it looks like paint was spattered on canvas or just colors smears together. Gosh I hope I don't offend anyone/ I mean I love some abstracts that contrast in colors and have shapes. But their are some that hang in the finest art museums, I have stood and stared for hours trying to see something in it and just couldn't. Your Birds of South Florida I can comprehend, I understand everything that's going on in it and I can highly appreciate a piece like that because I have not one ounce of that kind of talent. Yes surreal but very beautiful. I am not an art major I took one art class in college I loved it but don;t think I learned much to help open my eyes to that type of art. It's not for everybody but is for somebody! ;D
Well that's just it Rose not everyone can take a good photograph, not everyone can adjust the settings correctly on a camera to accomidate the subject they are shooting. Not everyone can compose an image correctly by looking through a view finder. Some people are simply happy clickers better know as point and shooters. You can buy yourself a big camera that will give the the high resolution images but unless you learn how to use that camera it's no better then your P&S camera or for that matter your cell phone camera.
The same can be said about the programs and filters that allow one to modify a photograph giving it a surreal look. Such as HDR not everyone can do HDR and get it to look good without getting ugly chromatic aberrations around the edges. These programs and filters are tools for a photographer just as a brush and canvas are tools for an artist.
I have dabbled around in all digital aspects of Photography, HDR and digital art I understand these things because this is my forte, not my expertese because I will always have room to learn more.
Regina -- I always thought that because an abstract image was not a simple photographic view of reality, the "Birds of South Florida" was considered an abstract image. However, your question suggest the interesting view that if any surrealistic image can be easily comprehended, it is not necessarily an abstract image.
So, perhaps the definition of an abstract image hinges on one's ability to comprehend the message within the image.
J L Meadows -- I can appreciate your view that a painting of the river scene would be more inspirational than a photograph -- but it would take me a week or more to paint the same scene with the kind of detail that photography can provide. Don't get me wrong -- I would love to spend the time painting a large river scene like the one posted. I have painted large murals of seascapes in the past and I know there are those who prefer owning one of a kind artwork than owning a copy of an image. But the time spent painting one large scene can be better spent gathering many more inspirational images using the science of photography. More persons can also share in the experience of the photographic artwork via the Internet.
Sad to agree....as it is, more people access all art nowadays, and steal it, too.
I really have learned that if the image pleases the viewer, whatever the medium, that's enough for me.
And so, I'm (much)better with the brush than the camera, an original hard copy canvas or paperwork will be my preference.
............ The good, the bad and the ugly ... How do you like it and where it will lead ...?
It is true and not true. While it is always useful to understand what customers want to achieve and get done, but there are often times when consumers donít know what they want and what they need.
attempt to find a middle ground, it is difficult to painful and frightening:)
I'm impressed by your work , all the fantastic artwork!
invited you - Contest - Paint Dancers http://fineartamerica.com/contests/paint-dancers.html?tab=overview
There is no right or wrong way for creating an individual work of art. There is no right or wrong way period. Having 51 years of Fine Art training in all mediums an individuals creation is their master piece. Its what the viewer perceives the piece to represent. Cheers, Michael Hoard
I guess for me, though Monet's waterlillies are beautiful and maybe what inspire most people, I can say with all honesty that his paintings do nothing to inspire me. Perhaps it is because I have no clue what it takes to produce the paintings he produced, I mean I understand the time he put into them, the imagination, and the RAW talent. I can and do enjoy seeing them but for me to be inspired it would take seeing a photograph that blows me away or even a painting that blows me away as the one I shared above. Perhaps it's because I am a detail person that this is what it takes to inspire me, I really don't know.
I doubt I will ever be like Ansel Adams (My inspiration) ;D and I know I will never become rich with my photography. But I suppose deep down my longing is to leave MY legacy with my family, friends and those whom have gotten to know me through my work as a photographer. I will never have an original piece of art work like the paintings you artists create with your God given talents. Heaven knows if I had the talents like you do Duane, I would embrass it with everything I have no matter how long it took me to create the indiviual pieces. My reason well it's simple, I can stand in front of a waterfall and take one of the most amazing photographs and though I may have my own distinction with how my images look, there will always be someone else that can come right behind me to create the same scene, it's all relative. What a painter (not to exclude those who draw, sketch, etc.) puts on canvas is an original. There will never be another like it, so what there are reproductions and prints of it that may come about, they are not the same. There still will NEVER be another original that has been adorned by the artist.
All this being said it brings up an interesting thought. I just wonder how many artists and photographers in the past where famous during their existence and where able to enjoy that fame verses merely leaving a legacy and becoming famous in death with their works.
.. at all:)
I agree with you - time gives value to the (sweet childhood memories) - the picture becomes a symbol of a fetish ...
I like Salvador Dali.... he waited for this period in the artist's life,
then - a blank canvas with his signature Sell for $ 10....
This has its own charm.... It inspires you?
I'm amazed at all the fantastic artwork!
I just want to remind you that Submissions End / Voting Begins:Sunday, January 20th, 2013 - 10:51 AM
invited you - Contest - Paint Dancers
J L Meadows -- your comment about Impressionism being "short on details" is interesting. For some people seeing a message within a simple image "short on details" is just what they need and want perhaps because their life is too complicated and they admire simple views of reality. There are filters in computer art programs that can modify a complicated photograph image into a simplistic image much like Monet's paintings.
But again, I see where you are coming from -- a really good painting created with a fast brush technique can sometimes be more inspiring than a photograph full of details. Unlike many photographic images, Fine Art paintings can also place colors not expected in areas of the image that really gives -- much like Kip DeVore suggested, that "aha" feeling.
When I was in high school my pencil drawings were special in the eyes of many fellow students because they had lots of realistic detail in them -- until a art teacher suggested that, as an illustrator, I should skip the details and draw images that a camera can't capture. So, I can see both sides regarding the subject of how much detail an image needs to have to make it special.
Vivian -- My Epson Stylus Pro9880 printer I've used for the last five years -- the same printer used by FAA, can print 44" wide prints on canvas that can print a painting as real as a real hand painted image -- less the surface brush strokes. My living room displays a panoramic 72" by 32" 150 DPI canvas print of a Blueridge mountain scene that looks great (if I say so myself). If I had to paint by hand the same scene it would take weeks to do.
Moreover, the science of photography and printing can replicate the panoramic image -- or any image, on a scale unimaginable to the average painter.
Having said that, there is a sense of simplicity of using a brush with paint on canvas that's more fun than sometimes dealing with empty ink cartridges and computer glitches -- especially when there is a deadline involved in the image order.
And speaking of deadlines, it seems that Commercial Art -- unlike Fine Art, is based on deadlines -- whereas Fine Art is based on datelines.
In Commercial Art -- which usually involves lots of lettering work for someone, if the artist doesn't meet the ordered deadline -- they are fired, or "dead" in the eyes of the person who hired the artist.
In Fine Art -- the artwork order comes from the artist themselves with only a approximate dateline to meet and not from someone who has the money but not the talent or time to create the artwork.
In other words, like Tony suggested, Fine Art is all about the artist behind the artwork. I actually believe Fine Art is about both the artist AND the artwork.
Regina -- Thank you for kind comments about my talent. I can see that you appreciate the details within an image and know that a photograph can capture lots of real detail in an instant.
Before the science of photography, a detailed painting by artist took lots of time and patience to create -- so, the idea was born that an image with lots of detail took a lot of time and patience to create. Then came photography -- were it took relatively little time to create a detail image.
So, I guess, to some persons who may have little knowledge or experience of the complexity behind modern photography, they assume that because it takes so little time to image a detail photograph, it should somehow lower the value of the image as compared to a time consuming hand painting of the same image.
Posted by: Duane McCullough on 01/18/2013 - 12:42 PM
"I actually believe Fine Art is about both the artist AND the artwork."
Posted by: Tony Murray on 01/17/2013 - 9:09 PM
"What constitutes fine art is the artist ( behind ) the image."
I didn't mean to leave the impression that the artwork itself is irrelevant. Let me put it this way, a surveillance camera on a street corner can capture many images, some unique and quite interesting, but never fine art, Now if a fine art photographer took the same images it is more likely they will embody the attributes of fine art.
Posted by: Duane McCullough on 01/18/2013 - 12:42
"So, I guess, to some persons who may have little knowledge or experience of the complexity behind modern photography, they assume that because it takes so little time to image a detail photograph, it should somehow lower the value of the image as compared to a time consuming hand painting of the same image."
Part of the reason I am such a fanatic when it comes to my definition of fine art. The image only exists because the fine art photographer or painter envisioned it. It is the mind's eye that gave it relevance, and not the degree to which it is processed. Value is based on the "Name" of the creator. Often times "found" or lost imagery is given greater value, regardless of it's efficacy, when it is discovered "Who" created it.
Duane, both your examples are considered fine art by me. In my opinion Tony's definition of "Fine Art" is what I consider marketing. I look to to the creation rather than the creator when making the determination. To me, anything that the artist has thought out and presented in an aesthetically pleasing manner is most definitely "Fine Art", regardless of the medium. When it comes to photography, that goes for everything from photos so clear and precise you think you're looking out a window to pictorialist and surrealist styled images.
I suppose most of the determination would lay in the eyes of the viewer, and for some artists that's where the marketing and long winded statements about emotions, meanings, feelings, and intent comes in. As far as I'm concerned a visual arts piece is only worth what it makes the viewer feel, without having to have a bug planted in their ear.
I have to retract what I said about Tony's definition of "Fine Art" after reading his latest post. I have a more clear understanding of what he meant, and agree with him. I totally misunderstood what Tony was getting at in his initial post.
Victoria -- your comment "there are often times when consumers donít know what they want and what they need" made me laugh because I know what you mean. Some art buyers gamble on between what they want and what they need -- so the visual artist needs to supply a wide variety of images to choose from.
I was once told by a gallery director that there are four basic types of visual art buyers out there.
The first is a buyer type that has a price limit of about $100 and likes the artwork for whatever reason.
The second buyer type loves the colors of the artwork and doesn't care if it is abstract or realistic looking -- it matches the color decor of the room they want to place it in.
The third buyer type loves the artwork because it invokes a special memory and will pay dearly to own it -- such as an image of a tire swing hanging from a old tree may bring back memories as a child.
And the fourth buyer type wants to buy all your artwork for investment reasons.
Tony -- your right, without the visionary, there would be no vision. Some of your latest visual sculptures of metal boxes with wire legs that seem to be walking off the ground are amusing to see. Definitely abstract and absolutely a work of Fine Art. When and if I ever see a similar piece of Fine Art -- your name Tony Murray will pop in my head.
Some time ago, when I used to do art shows in south Florida, I remember a metal sculpture artist in the next booth that created beautiful stainless-steel spiral wires that were balanced in such a way they could spin in wonderful circles. I believe his name was Michael Cutler. This memory event proves your point -- the name of the artist is very important in understanding the type of artwork.
Andrew -- thank you, I'm glad to read your comment. I guess what I was trying to ask was which of the two types of images seem to inspire more -- the abstract vision or the realistic view. Apparently, the answer depends on the attitude of the viewer.
I have read, and I don't mean to start a conflict, in any way, that there are only 3 "Fine Arts": painting, sculpture, and architecture.I'm sure this was said many, many years ago, and doesn't pertain to today's art.
Yury -- good viewpoint. Fine Art can not be exactly defined because the definition apparently varies with whoever tries to answer the question.
William -- what about the performing arts, such as music, dance, theater, poetry, and many other artist who create art? Is Fine Art restricted to just the visual spectrum of human creativity? Can a food chef be a fine artist?
If the chied is fine, he well can be an artist. LOL
Sorry, Duane, for my pointless jokes. I mean that any definition would not be correct or exact enough for someone. Fortunately it can not afect the Fine Art itself, because ART can not be bordered into limits of any definitions.
What "fine art" is may be determined by what you want it to be. It may also depend on how high your nose is in the air. Much of "fine art" is "art speak" and not very "fine art" at all. It is also very much about promotion.
Well, my takeaway on this discussion so far is the following views. There is "Fine Art" -- and there are the "Fine Arts". And since the word "fine" can be translated into the word "good" -- as in "I'm fine" or "I'm good", perhaps the term "Fine Art" means "Good Art".
Moreover, because the word "Art" can be translated into the activity of creating meaningful objects or beautiful visions using knowledge and imagination, perhaps the greater definition of the term "Fine Art" means "Good Creativity".
I believe that the label of "fine art" (or even just "art") comes entirely from the eye of the beholder.
If a person who created a painting calls it "fine art" but no one who sees it even thinks it's "art" ó what then is it? Is it based on the painter's perspective? I don't think so.
I take photographs and create abstracts. I refer to them as photographs and abstracts. If someone else says it's fine art, then that is the highest compliment I can get. But the next person may not see it the same way. You can't convince someone that you created fine art if they don't like it. So art is not universally accepted.
Of high quality.
The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"
Works produced by such skill and imagination.
As I suggested earlier regarding the difference between how Fine Artist and Commercial Artist make a living -- It seems that Commercial Artist, with deadlines to meet, sell their imagination and creative talent as a public service to buyers -- whereas Fine Artist, with no specific deadlines to meet, sell their imagination and creative talent as a personal service to buyers.
In otherwords, the creative works of Fine Artist are personal, whereas the creative works of Commercial Artist are public.
So, perhaps the source of good personal creativity is found more within the Fine Artist than in the Commercial Artist.
Yea, it's always a fun question, even though it has been asked so many times before. We seem to have a perpetual need to ask the question, and THIS is what makes the question really so interesting. Why do we need to ask it over and over again?
Maybe we need to see what today's answer is, as opposed to yesterday's or tomorrow's. I have no answer for you today or tomorrow, because, as I said, the phrase, "fine art", is not in my usual word usage these days, except as a tag or reference to somebody else or to some location using it.
I know, I know, I am on a website called "Fine Art America". As I said, "a tag or reference" device, ... a fashionable term that cues people somehow to respond in a characteristic range of attitudes towards art. So, I lied, ... THERE's an answer for you: Fine Art is a tag or reference to art that we are led to believe is worthy of serious attention.
Here is an interesting thing that I have found to be true. Although among artists the tendency to be liberal is pervasive, the disparity of rich to poor is the highest, which is often expunged by a liberal mindset. Odd.
Gregory -- Your Bridal Veil waterfall image would look great as a canvas print displayed on a door, or any other unique vertical display site. I would smile if I saw the waterfall in a doorway.
I just came across another viewpoint that may help define what is Fine Art.
It seems that the more a unique artwork object gets copied, the monetary value of the original artwork increases while the copies become less valuable.
For example, when original black velvet paintings first came out, they were unique and rare examples of Fine Art. But over the years, many cheap copies were mass produced and now, with a few exceptions, it seems these copies are not examples of Fine Art.
This viewpoint is also found within the "limited signed edition" concept of artwork -- whereby, the earlier the numbered artwork edition, the more valuable the artwork.
However, when a fine art photographer offers a quality printing service like Fine Art America to unlimited copies of the original image, apparently the "limited signed edition" concept of artwork no longer applies. Why is that?
Perhaps there was a time when quality copies of original artwork were rare and unique and it made sense to place a higher value on the limited artwork, but in this age of quality mass printing, the idea of limiting the work of artist just to keep it rare and unique is not so fashionable anymore.
In any case, another aspect in understanding the concept of what is Fine Art can be found in the idea that some people believe the value of unique artwork increases when made in limited editions.