 a

What Makes Fine Art Photography

by Joel Tjintjelaar | May 26, 2021 | B&W RECOMMENDED, Blog, Tutorials | 6
comments

a
d
WHAT MAKES FINE ART PHOTOGRAPHY
Introduction
A trending theme in photography right now is fine art photography.  I’m
calling myself a fine art photographer and perhaps you call yourself an artist
too or perhaps you don’t and you have encountered other photographers
calling themselves an artist. Are the self-proclaimed artists maybe a bit
pretentious? Maybe naive or ignorant? Or are they right to do so? It depends
on the definition of art and the principles or rules of art. More specifically I will
posit in this blog post that we need a personal definition of art and our own
personal rules for art. Also, I will present what makes fine art photography
according to my own personal definition of art. 

Why we all need to think about art

Writing and thinking about art or fine art may seem like a pretentious activity
to many. You create art and that’s it. But thinking and writing about art; leave
that to the academics, the art historians, the art critics, to influential world-
famous artists, to the renowned curators, and other members of the cultural
elite. If you’re not one of them, you are not qualified, even when you create
beautiful art. Or are you?

Even though the ‘elite’ all contributed a lot to the thinking about art, defining
and contemplating art is not reserved to that elite group only. And actually, it
 should be a priority of those creating art.

Art, or fine art, from a practical point of view, is the individual expression of an
authentic personal experience in a way that aspires to be aesthetic. A
concrete and practical activity. But what defines art? When do we talk about
art? In other words: what is the theoretical basis of art? And should that be
the exclusive domain of influential artists, art historians and critics, and
intellectuals? Should we just leave it to the cultural elite and let them decide
for all of us artists, what it is we should be creating and how and if it is art?

No. The artist and the artist only should decide what and how to create and
what art is to that artist.

We all should decide and define for ourselves, individually, what art is and
how we create it. We create art because it is an urgent need coming from
within to express and to communicate, not from outside. We, as artists, can
use the external information as a helpful guide, as an additional source, as a
reference. But the creation of art should always start from within the artist.

So, let’s talk about art and fine art photography and allow me to demonstrate
a how important it is for fine art photographers to think about art and to not
only have a personal definition of art but also to have a personal set of
d principles for art. All with the objective to make art that is personal and
authentic.

Related articles on this website

Since I started this website/blog some 12 years ago, I’ve written several
articles about art and fine art photography. But they were either implicit or
simply not concise and articulate enough for me. For example, this article
where I talk about architectural photography and this article.

Or this article where I talk about the individual experience corroborating the
artistic statement. 

Also more explicitly in this article about subjectivism, but I believe this goes
beyond just describing fine art photography, that the description of what fine
art actually is and what makes fine art, have got a bit lost.
a
d

Chicago – S Dearborn St view on S Wabash Ave

The subjective nature of art

I’m not pretending that I have the definitive answer to what art or fine art is.
And that’s fine, because, and this will become clear in this article: just as
subjective beauty is and how it is experienced and expressed, so is art and so
is the definition of art. The definition and rules of art will vary and I’m
convinced that’s how it should be.

There are few things in life that due to their strong subjective nature, cannot
be defined objectively and universally. The concept of love for example.  But
when it comes to art, then there’s this idea that there is an objective notion,
an objective experience, and an objective perception of art. I don’t believe
there is but actually believe that art has much in common with such abstract
concepts as love and stems from the same origins. Let me stop the
comparison here by saying that art is a highly subjective expression and
experience and should therefore be expressed, and experienced on a very
individual basis. And also defined on an individual basis.
 I will attempt to more concisely clarify, what I believe is fine art, and I will also
come up with a personal and subjective definition of art and hence of fine art.
Because, art or fine art are the same, only that the term fine art is more in use
for photography. And since aesthetics are intricately intertwined with art in
general, I’m even attempting to clarify through my own subjective prism what
I believe are the principles for creating beauty. 

The need for a personal definition of fine

art
But first, if we agree that art is personal and individual and a definition should
be personal, then that is one thing. Another thing is: why would it still be
needed then to come up with a clarification and definition? With our own
rules for art? Isn’t this academic and shouldn’t you just create art and leave
the polemics to those who only talk about art?

I believe, and obviously, you may disagree, the following about art, and that is
that art is highly subject-driven and experienced.

a Art is art if it is the intention of the artist to create art, not if it’s being perceived by
an external observer as art. If the latter were the case then the qualification of art
d would be similar to a democratic process: when in the process of seeking external
acknowledgment the more people that think a specific creation is art, the more
likely it is art. But art is not the same as politics, and should not be subjected to
the same principles. 

Furthermore, back in the late 1800s and early 1900s when the work of Van
Gogh, Picasso, Chagall or name any of the more abstracted works were
initially only appreciated by very few people and were widely considered to be
art by the public only years later, the reasoning of art being art when a critical
majority of people consider it art, would imply that their work was never art at
the beginning. 

My premise is that art is not in the eye of the beholder (and I doubt beauty is
either), and art is not in the appreciation and acknowledgment of a preferably
larger group of early adopters, but

art is the result of the intention and the authentic proclamation of the
artist. 

Does this mean that whenever someone says that their work is art, that it is
art?

There is no objective definition of art

 First, let me repeat again, that I don’t believe in an objective definition or
objective set of criteria for art, only in a subjective definition and subjective
set of criteria. But, no, I don’t believe that everyone would create art just by
saying so, without even knowing and without having decided for themselves
what art actually means to them. Without having their own subjective
definition and criteria. 

What is needed to proclaim art by the artist, is for the artist to have a personal
and subjective set of rules, a personal and subjective definition of what art is, and
a consistency in which the artist complies with their own set of rules. 

Art is in the intention and proclamation of the artist who consistently complies
with their personal definition of art.

This doesn’t imply automatically a high degree of articulateness in the

definition or rules. But it should be clearly and consistently articulated in the
artistic expression. That’s why I stated that art is in the intention and the
authentic proclamation of the artist. And for that proclamation, you need to

a have your own set of rules and your own definition of art.

d All great artists had their own personal

definition of art
Picasso’s art changed over periods of time, he held different personal criteria
for what he believed art is over those periods of time. Just a few people
agreed with what he laid down as a definition for art during such a period, but
that was irrelevant. What is relevant is that he had very specific and concrete
ideas about the objective and meaning of art and he complied with those
ideas when he set out to create a new masterpiece. The same applies to 20th-
century artists like Francis Bacon, Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, and many
other artists who are now considered to be ground-breaking artists. They
each had their own set of criteria and ideas for how their art should look like,
and only very few or none at all agreed with them at their time. And still there
are many who have their doubts about their art.

When I say that they all had their own set of criteria and ideas for what art is
and how it should look like, I don’t mean to say they wrote it down or phrased
it articulately in meaningful words to communicate to their audience. Words,
criteria, or principles that you can look up somewhere. No, most of the time
they expressed their ideas and criteria articulately in their art itself using the
visual language they mastered.

A definition of art not in words but in the

artistic expression
Jack Flam’s book on the work and artistic friendship and rivalry between
Picasso and Matisse and how they inspired and competed with each other is a
 great read to understand what I mean by this. The writer and the two artists
could ‘read’ the principles, the concepts, and criteria they used for their art, by
looking intensely at the art they created, by understanding the visual language
and personal vocabulary they were using, and then implicitly derived the rules
and concepts by the act of looking and interpreting and then responding to
that in their own artistic language. The artists communicated with each other
through their art, more articulately than they could through words. They
didn’t need written artist statements to understand each other and what they
actually created.

Again, the degree to which their work and ideas were appreciated is
irrelevant. Art is in the intention and proclamation of the artist who
consistently complies with their own personal definition, objectives, and
criteria for art. And I believe nothing else. Because an important aspect of art
is the communication of an experience, an emotion, an idea. And only the
artist knows how to effectively communicate that experience and the visual
language and vocabulary to enable that.

If critics say some specific work is derivative, they’re basically saying that the

a artist doesn’t have their own unique criteria for their art, whatever their
criteria may be. If you don’t agree with the criteria as an observer, then that’s
d perfectly fine. But it doesn’t take away from the fact that when the artist set
up a personal definition of art, laid down the criteria to comply with the
personal definition, and then expressed and proclaimed it, it still is art in the
artist’s view. That is in my view decisive.

Art isn’t established through a democratic

process
What makes art, art, or even great art, to a larger group of people, is not
because it follows a democratic process and is appreciated by a large group of
people, but because their ideas, their principles, and criteria for art, can be
derived and understood by looking at their art in such a way it is considered
to be unique by people who give voice to this uniqueness by proxy of the
artist. Those are often the art critics and other influential voices in the world
of art. But still, it starts with, and it is defined by, the proclamation of the
artist, that art is created and presented.

So, now allow me to present my definition of art. You can use this as a guide
for yourself if you agree, or you can use elements of it to come up with your
own definition, or perhaps you can use it for inspiration to come up with
something entirely new. It’s up to you.

My personal definition and principles for

fine art 
 What is important to keep in mind is that this is my personal definition of art
to which I’m trying to live by when I create fine art. This is not a universal, let
alone an absolute definition of art. It is my definition and the principles and
criteria that go with it are personal.

Art is the authentic and intentional expression of a personal experience, in a way

that aspires to be aesthetic as to trigger an experience the observer hasn’t
experienced before and results in moving and informing the observer

To extrapolate this to fine art photography:

A beautiful photograph only isn’t art, but it should MOVE us, INFORM us and
make us experience something we didn’t experience and know before, to be art

What is very useful to know, whether you’re trying to understand and

appreciate art, recognize art or create art, is the separation of Subject matter
and Object matter.
a (Fine) Art = Subject Matter Not Equal To Object Matter
d To me, the quintessence in fine art photography is that the subject matter is
not the same as your object matter. This may sound like semantics but is
actually crucial in understanding art and in this I follow the argumentation of
abstract painter Barnett Newman who voiced this distinction articulately in
this short interview. Your intention as an artist is to communicate a message,
an idea, with your photograph: that message, idea or experience is the subject
matter. The object matter in the photo, that concrete thing you’re capturing,
will then take on a symbolic role through which the message (subject matter)
can be effectively communicated. When subject matter and object matter are
the same, then what you see as concrete object(s), is what the photographer
wanted you to see and there’s no other message behind it. News photographs
or commercial ads for example.

Alfred Stieglitz’s famous Equivalents series, considered to be one of the first

deliberate expressions of fine art photography, show clearly this distinction
between object and subject matter when he photographed a series of clouds
but the photographs weren’t about clouds at all. The photos were an
expression of his inner state of mind, the subject matter, and the clouds, the
object matter, were just symbols through which he could express his
emotions.
a
d

(c) Mark Rothko – this abstract painting by Mark Rothko is nonrepresentational, it

doesn’t contain a clear, recognizable object matter. But the subject matter is there
in what Rothko intended to communicate with this painting. In general, Rothko
wanted the viewer to ‘break down and cry’ in front of his works.
 (c) Alfred Stieglitz – Equivalents. This is a part of a few of his series of many cloud
a photographs that Stieglitz called Equivalents. Stieglitz wasn’t trying to show us

d clouds, the photographs weren’t about clouds at all. The clouds were the object
matter. What Stieglitz tried to express through the series of photographs of clouds
was his inner state of mind, a specific emotion, the real subject matter, that he
could express by using clouds as a symbol. But, other artists might have used
other objects, other symbols to express what they wanted to communicate as the
subject matter. I, for example, use buildings (and their symbiotic relationship with
light and shadow)  as object matter and symbols to communicate what I think and
feel. 

Beauty
Looking at my definition, many other questions will arise, and in my view,
perhaps the most asked and debatable one is the question ‘What is beauty?’.
After all, when we create images, or sculptures, or poems, or music, or any
other artistic expression, isn’t the one thing we always strive for, no matter
how much we aim to convey an important message, to create at least
something that can be considered beautiful? 

Trying to answer the question of what beauty is, in a way that satisfies
everyone, is by definition impossible, as ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’.
And as we’ve determined by now after reading my views on art, principles of
art need to be defined individually, and that applies to principles of beauty as
well as it is one of the main goals of artistic expression. So, beauty is not only
in the eye of the beholder, but especially in that of the creator.
 For more than a decade I’ve been working on my own principles of what I
personally consider beautiful and most of those principles have stayed
unchanged, others evolved, some are now better motivated, but not one
principle has disappeared. Which already is an indication, they are true to me.

So what are my principles of beauty and what do I deem beautiful as a

creator?

Throughout art history, and especially the last 120 years, art became less
representational and increasingly more abstract and nonrepresentational. We
saw this happening very explicitly in painting. Very likely this also has to do
with the increasingly more prominent position photography held in the idea
of ‘capturing reality’. My perception is that the introduction of photography
only accelerated the shift to more abstract art. Art that isn’t representational.
The desire for abstraction has always been there.

Abstract art as we know it now is usually associated with its emergence in the
early 20th century with the works of artists like Mondrian, Kandinsky and
Picasso

a But there’s research available that indicates that abstraction, or moving away
from reality, already took place much earlier in art history. Albeit not as
d explicit perhaps as today’s abstract art, but there were sure indications
toward some level of abstraction as V.S. Ramachandran and William Hirstein
in ‘The science of art’ already observed.

Abstraction and moving away from reality as

aesthetic principles
An abstraction of reality, or moving away from reality to create a ‘hyper’ or
meta-reality – even though I’m very aware all those concepts aren’t exactly the
same – is said to be experienced as more aesthetic by humans according to
the two authors. And subconsciously this has always played an important role
in my creative process. Not only to create something beautiful but just as
importantly because I’ve always been drawn to creating images that don’t
represent an objective reality but a perceived and personal reality. 

So, moving away from reality has always been an important aesthetic
principle in my work. Everything I do is aimed at moving away from reality to
create beauty. And my simple logic, based on intuition and only in retrospect
based on the aforementioned scientific research, is the more steps you move
away from reality, and approach a hyper-reality, the more you achieve a
‘hyper’ aesthetic. But let’s not forget that beauty is just one important aspect
of what I believe to be fine art and surely isn’t the only aspect.

Steps  for moving away from reality to create

beauty
 I’ve recognized the following steps for moving away from reality that I’ve
applied to my own workflow to create (a highly subjective) beauty in my
photography. 

First, I describe the first three steps that are inherent to any photograph
already. The moment you take a photograph, you’re already 3 steps away
from reality. 

Then I present 5 additional steps that I use personally to move even further
away from reality.

FIRST 3 STEPS AWAY FROM REALITY INHERENT TO ANY

PHOTOGRAPH
1. PHOTOGRAPHY IS ALREADY A SCALED-DOWN VERSION OF REALITY
2. PHOTOGRAPHY IS A 2D VERSION OF A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL REALITY
3. A FRAMED, SINGULAR, PERSPECTIVE OF A MUCH WIDER REALITY

FIVE ADDITIONAL STEPS AWAY FROM REALITY

PERSONALLY 
a 4. BLACK & WHITE – (partly in-camera, largely post-processing)
5. LONG EXPOSURE – (in-camera only)
d 6. CREATING PRESENCE (DEPTH) – (partly in-camera, largely post-processing)
7. DISTORTED AND EXAGGERATED DIMENSIONAL CONTRAST (2D vs 3D
planes/objects) ( partly in-camera, largely post-processing)
8. DISTORTED AND EXAGGERATED PERSPECTIVE BY GETTING CLOSER
(ARCHITECTURE) (largely in-camera, amplified in post-processing via step 6)

So, this is how I move away from reality as many steps as possible and hence
create something that in any case is beauty in my own eyes, and perhaps also
is beauty in the eyes of the beholder other than myself. But the latter should
never be a decisive principle. Only what you see through your own eyes and
your own subjective principles for aesthetics and for art.

I’m always in search of new ways to move away from reality with even more
steps when creating fine art photography.

Conclusion
Set up your own personal vocabulary within a specific visual language, in such
a way it effectively expresses your voice. Believe in your own definition and
principles, stay true to them and enable yourself to defend those principles
through your own art. Respond through your art to convince the other.

If you can transform the definition and principles into words, then even
better, but the artistic expression should always be decisive. Also, find your
principles to create beauty and stay true to them as well. Just saying you
 create art according to your own principles and definition, is then enough to
establish art, and more specifically for our readers: fine art photography.

Other Resources
More on black and white photography and fine art photography can be found
in the eBook From Basics to Fine-art, that I co-wrote with Julia Anna
Gospodarou

Please consider a small donation

Help keep our articles and tutorials free and of the highest quality with a
small donation.

Since 2009 we’ve written and published free tutorials of the highest quality
that have contributed in an original way to the public knowledge of B&W
a fine art and long exposure photography. We were arguably the first to
publish a free and an in-depth hands-on tutorial on long exposure
d photography in 2009 and we have published various articles/tutorials on
fine art photography and B&W processing over the years that have
influenced many photographers in the way they approach B&W fine art
photography.

A small donation would therefore help us to keep our website and content
going for years to come – freely accessible to anyone interested in the art
and craftsmanship of B&W photography.

Joel Tjintjelaar

Donate

a d

Related
 Book reviews for From Interview with Julia Anna IN DEFENSE OF BLACK
Basics to Fine Art Gospodarou AND WHITE
PHOTOGRAPHY
5 Jun ’14 27 Oct ’17
In "Blog" In "Blog" 15 Apr ’17
In "B&W RECOMMENDED"

6 Comments
lance saunders on 7 Jun ’21 at 7:17 pm
Joel, this is one of the most eloquent and thoughtful point’s of view on
‘what is fine art photography’ that has been published in recent years. It
a is certainly more insightful than ‘Andy Warhol’s definition of what art is

d as, ” art is whatever you can get away with” and more grounded in reality
than those definitions’ provided by art curator’s with MFA’s who so
overcomplicate it that no one understands it.

Perhaps even as or more importantly than a great definition of what fine

art photography is then how to personalize for you, as you so succinctly
put it to ”Set up your own personal vocabulary within a specific visual
language, in such a way it effectively expresses your voice.”

I really hope this gets widely read in influential photo blogs globally as
you have planted a very modern take on this topic of art, beyond what
we all love to quote from such masters such as Bresson, Adams, and
others on this topic .

As you can tell I absolutely loved this post, as it is one that will have you
thinking long after you have read it.

Reply

Sean CK on 30 May ’21 at 5:29 pm

Joel, this article was especially moving to me. I read it yesterday and still
thinking about it. It’s always interesting explaining to others why I use the
term “fine art” as opposed to simply calling my work black and white
photography, (which I also do). But when it’s intentional and you spend a
week or weeks in post for an image around the principals that guide you;
 artistic expression has played a significant role. The topic is summarized
beautifully in the first subheadings and you continue to unpack the
concepts throughout, bringing it home with your own definition. I love
the artist references as well. Well done!

Reply

Martin Marchyshyn on 27 May ’21 at 3:36 pm

Very thought provoking, Joel. Thank you. There is a lot to unpack here,
and I will have to read and reread it over the course of time to fully
appreciate your words. Thank you for putting pen to paper on this topic.

Reply

Joel Tjintjelaar on 29 May ’21 at 1:24 am

a Thanks Martin – always great to hear that.If you reread it and

have some observations/questions, please let me know as I’m
d always trying to learn and improve as well.

Joel

Joel Tjintjelaar on 26 May ’21 at 11:20 pm

Iain, I don’t understand you question in the context of this article. But
yes, that’s also the way I would sell my prints. Although I wouldn’t restrict
it to just one size. All sizes, within a specific range, will count for the
limited edition.

Joel

Reply

iain cairns on 26 May ’21 at 9:16 pm

How about fine art prints, being printed on archival paper, signed on
back with a certificate of authenticity, no more than 30 to be sold, all
numbered, all of the same size. Once sold that is the end of the run and
you don’t sell anymore at a different size.

Reply
 This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is
processed.

TOP POSTS
Top 10 Photographers
Complete Guide To Long Exposure Photography - 2016 Edition
Top 10 Self Portraits
How to manage and save selections - Beginners level
Black and White Still life photography
High-Level Principles for Fine-art Processing
Top 5 Books for Fine Art photographers
IN DEFENSE OF BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHY
a What Makes Fine Art Photography
d Top 5 most common mistakes in B&W photography

Downloads Affiliate
BW Artisan Lite Panel Click here to sign up to our affiliate program.
Long exposure Quick Reference Card
Luminosity mask action set

Donate
Help keep our articles and tutorials free and high quality with a small
donation. 

Recent Posts
 Top 5 most common mistakes in B&W photography
What Makes Fine Art Photography
High-Level Principles for Fine-art Processing
Apple Silicon M1 processors and PS plugins compatibility
Free Webinar Quick Mask Pro – October 4, 2020
Top 5 Books for Fine Art photographers




(c) Copyright 2009-2021 - Joel Tjintjelaar - BWVISION.COM

a
d