Fine Art Portraiture

Ah, you mean the image shot by Hendrik Kerstens

Here


I like that image- is that fine art??? I think its a woman with a carrier bag study :D:D:D:D:D

Les :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought it was a pair of really big knickers at first glance!
 
If Beth considers it "fine art" and it depicts her vision and emotions, then it's fine art. It doesn't mean everyone else will see it that way, as said, it's extremely subjective. Personally, these portraits don't convey a message or an emotion so I struggle to see them as fine art. That is of course just my opinion and doesn't reflect what everyone else might think and in no way takes away from the fact I think they are brill :)

The definition of what is fine art is so subjective and diverse it's actually very difficult to quantify.
 
second comment here....i think number 2 here is fantastic, only comment is the 2 catchlights in eyes, but both very good examples of portraiture, right up my street....keep up the good work, much better than the plastic bag on the head (fine art portraiture...pffft).
 
pabloikonic said:
second comment here....i think number 2 here is fantastic, only comment is the 2 catchlights in eyes, but both very good examples of portraiture, right up my street....keep up the good work, much better than the plastic bag on the head (fine art portraiture...pffft).
Click to expand...

Thanks very much! :) It's clamshell lighting... Usually has two catch lights from what I understand from tutorials?
 
sunnyside_up said:
By definition, it tends to lack the more candid, high key or usual smiley expressions that you'd expect from a young person's portrait.
Click to expand...

That's not really a definition, something considered fine art could be candid, posed, high key, low key, mid key, full of cheesy smiles, or miserable as sin - what the actual photo looks like and its content could be absolutely anything.

sunnyside_up said:
Not sure I agree with that comment and how it relates to what I've done here. Approach and the meaning?? I think you're getting too deep there... But each to his own.
Click to expand...

As Charlotte has said, that's the whole point. If there's no meaning to the photo, no purpose to the approach (and I mean artistic purpose, not I planned the lighting and the pose because I thought it would make a nice looking photo) then how is it fine art? It's just a nice photo.

Yes, each to their own, and anytime the word "art" is used, people will say, ah well it's subjective. But you can't call everything fine art if it doesn't mean anything, that just cheapens the work that does have thought and meaning behind it.

Doesn't stop commercial portrait and wedding photographers from sticking the term "fine art" on their websites though. :rolleyes:

And again, as Charlotte has said; I'm not having a go here, I think the photos are nice. But, they appear to be nice examples of on trend commercial portraiture, not fine art, not that that takes anything away from them.
 
I'm not going to get into a sparring match about what my approach, meaning and what I was trying to achieve with primarily my first photo... I don't entirely agree with what you're saying. I'm not a professional photographer... But I do consider myself an artist.

I posted this in a critique section so I expect to hear crit about what I've done. Doesn't mean I have to agree with you, James.

Someone, bring back the woman in the big knickers?? ;)
 
Last edited:
sunnyside_up said:
I'm not going to get into a sparring match about what my approach, meaning and what I was trying to achieve with primarily my first photo... I don't entirely agree with what you're saying. I'm not a professional photographer... But I do consider myself an artist.

I posted this in a critique section so I expect to hear crit about what I've done. Doesn't mean I have to agree with you, James.

Someone, bring back the woman in the big knickers?? ;)
Click to expand...


Here you go -fine art at it's finest



Les :D
 
sunnyside_up said:
I'm not going to get into a sparring match about what my approach, meaning and what I was trying to achieve with primarily my first photo... I don't entirely agree with what you're saying. I'm not a professional photographer... But I do consider myself an artist.

I posted this in a critique section so I expect to hear crit about what I've done. Doesn't mean I have to agree with you, James.

Someone, bring back the woman in the big knickers?? ;)
Click to expand...

I wasn't looking for a sparring match, a discussion maybe. I also don't expect you to agree with me.

Surely if you are an artist though, and this is art, then you would be happy to discuss it. In fact I would assume that was the aim of the work (discussion).
 
I always find the discussion on fine art portraiture interesting. I'm not even sure what qualifies as 'fine art' and what doesn't, there is a lot of opinion with no real clear definition of what it actually is. But I think to say the image has no purpose or approach can be a little ignorant. (not having a dig btw) As an outsider looking in we don't know the reasons why Bethy took this image. If you appreciate art I don't think you should be so quick to dismiss it.

James, do you think you can't be commissioned to produce 'fine art' work for a client at their wedding or for commercial reasons? Can they not have a story and meaning to the images they want to create?

BTW, I think the image is nice. I like the tones, as personal preference I would have added a bit more negative space on the right. And I agree with the comments regarding the texture, I'd drop the opacity a touch or add 2-3% of gaussian blur :) Nice work Bethy.
 
More generally .... I listened to all of Grayson Perry's Reith lectures this year and he seemed to spend a lot of time trying to define 'Art', never mind 'Fine Art', (and not succeeding.)

And as regards photography the only mention I recall him making of it was that he had asked some 'expert' or other if photography was or could be 'Art' and the answer was:

'Yes if it's big enough'

EDIT - if you want to become even more confused about defining 'Fine Art Photography' try:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-art_photography

You can then take your pick from whichever definition takes your fancy:)
 
Last edited:
Mank said:
James, do you think you can't be commissioned to produce 'fine art' work
Click to expand...

Of course they can. Many artists would struggle to eat if they weren't commissioned to produce work.

The term 'fine art' has been co-opted by photographers (generally those who deal direct with the public, portraits, weddings, etc) as a marketing tool. I prefer to use the term in a 'purer' sense, for want of a better word.
 
As the thread has been hijacked already. I have to slightly disagree with Charlotte and others. I went to the Taylor Wessing exhibition last weekend as I try to every year. There are some stunning portraits there. However, I don't think a photograph has to have a 'description' of what it's 'deep' meaning is and what its story is about to make it good. Too many of the images on display seemed to do this and were just ok shots - when you read the description you realised that the two women were Syrian refugees that had both suffered family members brutally murdered etc etc but trying not to sound too cold hearted, the images were just a well exposed picture of two women in a run down building. It doesn't make it 'fine art' or good just because it has a tragic story behind it. I am a bit bored tbh of these 'poor' unfortunates in foreign lands that quite frankly are exploited in the name of 'making their voice heard'. Its rubbish, seeing a pic of two ladies in an old building doesn't make it art or further their cause.

One of the best and memorable portraits was of Oscar Pretorius at one of his hearings, documentary and amazing. The winner, a female jockey, brilliant but I am not sure of the 'deep' meaning, however it does have a point and it is trying to say something emotionally. My fave was of twin young ladies. Can't remember what their cause was but the shot lives in my mind still as it exuded emotion. The Exhib at the NPG is well worth a visit if you want to enjoy and soak up emotional imagery.
 
CharlotteM said:
It is a subtle nuance and not helped by the myriad of (American) photographic 'superstars' who have claimed the phrase 'fine art portraiture' as their own as a way of saying 'look at me, I'm creative!'.

But essentially it is like comparing a Gucci advert to an image from the Red Cross' work in Syria. They might both feature young women and clothes, they might both be planned shots, but they don't have the same meaning or message.

ETA: I do think the portraits in this thread are great though. Really lovely. I just don't agree that they're 'fine art'.
Click to expand...

Got to agree with you Charlotte on your points... Which doesn't always happen so you know I definitely mean it if if I say it ;)

I teach photography and couldn't have described what 'fine art' is better, it's a conceptual piece of work... The OP's image is a portrait and nothing more. It IS a very nice portrait, I'd say its one of the best I've seen on here in a while, but it's not fine art it's a nice portrait.

People love to use words like fine art to make their work sound more impressive, but in this case the image speaks for itself so there's no need. Doing something a little more creative doesn't make it fine art, however I have to give the OP credit for the image and for trying to approach things in a more artistic way
 
Rich_Ellis said:
The winner, a female jockey, brilliant but I am not sure of the 'deep' meaning, however it does have a point and it is trying to say something emotionally.
Click to expand...

I posted on this a while ago. To me the picture was meaningful because it showed the everyday face of a woman in a sport dominated by men. A sport where women and men can compete as equals - there aren't many sports where you can do that. Off the top of my head perhaps just motorsports and equine sports? To me it was also making a point about how female sports stars don't need to be dressed up in evening gowns, fancy hair cut and precision make up in order to be considered worthy for public display. Something particularly relevant in our post-Olympic phase, where we've seen male commentators having to apologise for comments they've made about the appearance of female sports stars. The wearyness, the dirt, the crumpled silks, it all adds up to a fantastic portrait of a female sports star - as they should be portrayed - in a way that respects their achievements.

And that was before I read the card.

(Before I get jumped on - I should add that my particular interests in art lie around outsider/queer/feminist interpretations which is why I 'saw' this reading without prompting.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CharlotteM said:
I posted on this a while ago. To me the picture was meaningful because it showed the everyday face of a woman in a sport dominated by men. A sport where women and men can compete as equals - there aren't many sports where you can do that. Off the top of my head perhaps just motorsports and equine sports? To me it was also making a point about how female sports stars don't need to be dressed up in evening gowns, fancy hair cut and precision make up in order to be considered worthy for public display. Something particularly relevant in our post-Olympic phase, where we've seen male commentators having to apologise for comments they've made about the appearance of female sports stars. The wearyness, the dirt, the crumpled silks, it all adds up to a fantastic portrait of a female sports star - as they should be portrayed - in a way that respects their achievements.

And that was before I read the card.

(Before I get jumped on - I should add that my particular interests in art lie around outsider/queer/feminist interpretations which is why I 'saw' this reading without prompting.)
Click to expand...

I saw, strong, determined, proud, confident and defiant. I also saw make-up which surprised me given she had just finished racing so not sure your descriptions are correct. Also, the card said that the photographer also took shots of other jockeys that day so I am not sure the 'intention' was to take an image of a sportswoman as you describe. However, you can of course read what you want to into it, that is the point.
 
I don't really care about the ins and outs of fine art blah blah... all I know is I like the images, nice work and processing.
 
Don't suppose you care to share how you lit these?
 
doublemint76 said:
Don't suppose you care to share how you lit these?
Click to expand...

Hi Dan. Thanks for your comments/feedback.

Both images were done with Quadra Rangers, the first going through a shoot through umbrella, the main being camera left, with a tiny bit of fill camera right down low. I also put a couple of extra layers of diffusion pinned over top the actual heads to really soften it up. The second was done with classic clamshell lighting, again using shoot through umbrellas, with extra diffusion added.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top