What makes a photograph a 'fine art' photograph?

Because I see a lot of photographers in business to sell prints calling their photos 'fine art' photos, and I'm trying to figure out where the distinction comes from. Is it some sort of genre, people pumping themselves up to sound more legit, or is it something else that flies way over my head?

I've always wondered this too, but I think it's so subjective that it just depends on each persons own opinion. One definition I found from googling: "Fine art photography": "The production of images to fulfill the creative vision of a photographer. ... Synonymous with art photography". Which indicates that there really isn't any distinction.

I always used to consider fine art as abstract, but obviously that's just a small "genre" since landscape, portraits, architecture, etc. have been considered fine art.

I'm sure you're definitely right about people using the title to gain more recognition too.

I think that it's a marketing term. Sort of like those 'fine art' sales they occasionally hold at discount hotel chains in their dingy confrence rooms.

"Fine art photography" refers to photographs that are created in accordance with the creative vision of the photographer as artist. It is done to express the artist's perceptions and emotions and to share them with others.

On my opinion, it goes way beyond than just taking a shot. There is a vision, a concept behind.

As Martin Munkacsi said "Think while you shoot"... so it's is not just an accidentally clever picture.

This is the vision I am trying to follow with my artists in my gallery.
If you are interested, please check it out, ArtFizz at http://art-fizz.com

fizsofi wrote in post #14374590
"Fine art photography" refers to photographs that are created in accordance with the creative vision of the photographer as artist. It is done to express the artist's perceptions and emotions and to share them with others.

On my opinion, it goes way beyond than just taking a shot. There is a vision, a concept behind.

As Martin Munkacsi said "Think while you shoot"... so it's is not just an accidentally clever picture.

This is the vision I am trying to follow with my artists in my gallery.
If you are interested, please check it out, ArtFizz at http://art-fizz.com

Hmmmm. I hadn't thought of it that way.

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Fine-art_photography

The price.

fizsofi wrote in post #14374590
As Martin Munkacsi said "Think while you shoot"... so it's is not just an accidentally clever picture.

Or sometimes it is.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #14374671
The price.

To bad its the collectors making the real $$$$.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14374739
To bad its the collectors making the real $$$$.

Yeah, and most of the time, you have to be dead for it to be considered fine art anyways... and to command the higher price.

However, I actually encourage anyone and everyone who shoots photos, to refer to their stuff as fine art/fine art photographers.

I mean, why not? Maybe it will dilute the market and make the term seem as stupid as it is?

"Fine Art" is also a recognized class of usage that differentiates images Vs say, Commercial or Editorial.

If I sell a portrait for private use in someone's home, that's fine art use. If I sell it to a magazine to illustrate a story, that's editorial. If I sell it to be used in an advertisement, that could be construed as commercial.

Two words

gonzogolf wrote in post #14374697
Or sometimes it is.

Heres what a few of the truly great art photographers had to say about the thinking part:
"One does not think during creative work, any more than one thinks when driving a car. But one has a background of years - learning, unlearning, success, failure, dreaming, thinking, experience, all this - then the moment of creation, the focusing of all into the moment. So I can make 'without thought,' fifteen carefully considered negatives, one every fifteen minutes, given material with as many possibilities. But there is all the eyes have seen in this life to influence me." - Edward Weston

"Thinking should be done before and after, not during photographing. Success depends on the extent of one's general culture. one's set of values, one's clarity of mind one's vivacity. The thing to be feared most is the artificially contrived, the contrary to life." - Henri Cartier-Bresson

"My pictures are never pre-visialized or planned. I feel strongly that pictures must come from contact with things at the time and place of taking. At such times, I rely on intuitive, perceptual responses to guide me, using reason only after the final print is made to accept or rejetct the results of my work." - Wynn Bullock

"I frame with my eye (sometimes with my hands) as the ground glass would frame. Nothing that one could reasonably call thinking is taking place al this stage. The condition is total absorption; the decision (a picture) is spontaneous ... Ambiguity may be the clue, there is the material. and there am I intruding my private intent. I know the imminence of the world and experience it with full sensuality; at the same time I am involved with projection of myself as idea. Strong tensions are inevitable, pleasurable and disturbing. Is not the aesthetic optimum order with the tensions continuing? - Aaron Siskind

"I think the most beautiful inventions are the ones you don't think of." - Diane Arbus

also heres what the great Sci Fi writer Ray Bradbury said about:
"Don't think. Thinking is the enemy of creativity. It's self-conscious, and anything self-conscious is lousy."-Ray Bradbury

Todd Lambert wrote in post #14374775
Yeah, and most of the time, you have to be dead for it to be considered fine art anyways... and to command the higher price.

However, I actually encourage anyone and everyone who shoots photos, to refer to their stuff as fine art/fine art photographers.

I mean, why not? Maybe it will dilute the market and make the term seem as stupid as it is?

I was reading something last week and what i was reading was saying that high end collectors are buying and selling making small fortunes on their initial investments. the high end art market is yielding much higher yields than they could ever imagine with stocks. They go to galleries and buy pieces at relatively low prices of up and coming artist. They buy entire portfolios of work or just several individual pieces and if the artist takes off BINGO. 10 years later something the bought for less that 10K is now being auctioned for several hundred thousand on millions. But they do have real knowledge in the market because those that don't can really take a bath and do.

FlyingPhotog nailed it. It is nothing more than a catagory. One that, to me, is defined as the image for no other reason than the image. And it is not trying to sell anything other than the image.

The exact same image can de used for other reasons and then it also lives in that catagory. They are not mutualy exclusive. A lot of "fine art" has been used to sell a product. But that does not mean it is no longer fine art.