Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
"Fine art"
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
This has come up before, I'm sure, but possibly not in the same context(s).
First, a remark made to me in open studio. A harmless remark, but one that got me thinking. A very lovely lady (and no, she didn't buy anything) was talking to me about art, life, etc and she told me about her daughter, who has studied art. She said something like, "but of course, my daughter does fine art". There was evidently no slur upon my work intended. I think what was meant was that my work was figurative and easier to understand than her daughter's, but the lady was uncertain of the definition of the term.
It's a tricky term, to be sure. Art jargon, and slippery with it.
I think I know what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean delicate or intricate or drawn with very narrow lines (oh, hello Rotring Radiograph). It doesn't mean obscure and difficult to understand. It doesn't mean looks-like-an-old-master or photorealistic-can't-see-the-brushstrokes. It doesn't mean can't-see-the-painting-for-the-brushstrokes.
I have a feeling that it sometimes means we-can-charge-a-lot-of-money-for-this.
But mostly, I think it means, not graphical art, not illustration, art without additional function. A redundant term, perhaps?
What does the term "fine art" mean to you?
And secondly, I've noticed that many other artists use the term " fine art" in their publicity - Web sites, descriptors on cards, etc. Is it useful to do this? Does it make a difference? Is it pandering to the horrible elitism surrounding the art market?
But I'll leave the can of worms labeled "elitism" to another occasion.
Posted
I reckon it's the art world's equivalent of the snobbery in the music world I inhabit, a suggestion that what her daughter does requires more training and skill than what you do. It seems to be compounded by the colleges and courses available, too; how many times do you read in The Artist that "so and so studied Fine Art".
And it works - when I tell people that I play Classical Guitar they instantly pay more attention to what I'm saying and I can feel the respect level going up a few notches from what it was when the person I'm talking to thought I just played pop music. There are qualification in both genres, but the instant you use the phrase Classically Trained - or Fine Art - someone, somewhere, equates it with "better than the masses".
Don't let it get to you.
Posted
I think 'Fine Art' is very much a term used by the art market to increase the price (not value!?) of particular pieces of art. It seems to me to be a dated term that I largely ignore when I am investigating exhibitions or sales where I might sell, or buy, paintings. I'm sure everyone has their own interpretation of 'Fine'.
Posted
Having looked up a few definitions (and they all vary) I think I rather favour the one which says that the term Fine Art applies to art practised for it's aesthetic value rather than for it's functional value. This is in contrast to what is often referred to as Applied art (ie crafts) which is more concerned with utilitarian activities.
But nothing is clear cut - where does this leave Grayson Perry? If you accept this definition it means that most of us who post on POL are Fine Artists - I quite like the thought - makes me a fine fellow - or at least I like to think so!
Putting on my serious hat I can't say I like the term Fine Art - it smacks of pomposity - a term, it seems to me, we could well do without. Art is art regardless.
Posted
I think my stuff is so described on my website (I only think so because I haven't checked it lately, knowing it needs work and not really wanting to do it), but I didn't write it or so describe it.
The only situation in which the term has any use is to distinguish work done by, er, fine artists from commercial illustration - so if one's a "fine artist", one probably doesn't do architectural drawings, or design soup cans: possibly, and only possibly, Warhol was making some obscure comment on this when he painted Heinz's various varieties; or was it Campbell's .... anyway, I'm sure I'm crediting the little twerp with far too much imagination.
What is meant by it in academe, I don't know: probably very little - I doubt that it has anything to do with describing the abstract as opposed to the figurative, and quite possibly your lady had only the haziest idea of what it was her daughter was doing: doubtless mirroring her uncertainty in other areas about which she would rather not think. (Summarized in a phrase I overheard: "Oh I do hope Demelza's being careful!".)
Posted
I think that there is a simple distinction that can be made to classify 'fine art'. All 'fine art' has a narrative and makes a statement. Leonado's fresco 'The Last Supper' makes a statement about an important incident in the life of Jesus. All of great Italian Renaissance art is based on narratives taken from the Bible. So for me they can be classed as Fine Art.
Some 18th Century paintings have an underlying narrative and so fit the definition of 'fine art'. Turner's 'Slave traders throwing slaves overboard' exposes how cruel the slave trade was - definitely 'fine art'. Picasso's 'Guernica' painted in reaction to an atrocity inflicted on civilians in the Spanish Civil war is 'fine art'
So ignore dealers and the art market concentrate on the more objective opinions of Art Historians like Ernst Gombrich author of 'The Story of Art'. There's not a classification that can be applied that has universal acceptance. So this thread is never going to reach a conclusion. My grandson has just completed a Masters' Degree in Fine Art' at York University so I'll ask him for his opinion.
Edited
by robK2
Posted
fine art
/ˌfaɪn ˈɑrt/
noun
1.
creative art, especially visual art, whose products are to be appreciated primarily or solely for their imaginative, aesthetic, or intellectual content
"the convergence of popular culture and fine art"
2.
an activity requiring great skill or accomplishment
I have always understood that fine art is pure painting as opposed to applied art or illustrative art. Then if you look at the Uni Syllabus it also appears to apply to performing arts...I don't think it has any kudos unless you are going to starve. I think applied art or illustration will pay the mortgage before Fine Art.
Posted
And Sylvia, you're absolutely right: I've earned more from illustration, even though I don't do much of it (not from choice, I might add: commission me, someone!) than I have from what I'd call fine art - and it's so much easier, provided you have a good relationship with whoever commissioned it and you both know from the outset what is wanted. Easier because you have a brief, and a deadline, and you know what you're doing, and how much you can spend on materials to make a decent profit. I illustrated a book, a children's novel (The Windmill Mystery by Peter Duddigan, for anyone interested). It was fun to do - I just had to read the book, put myself in the position of the characters, read the author's mind a bit - which isn't difficult if the book is well-written - and off I went. I'd love to do that again: especially since I think I could do a bit better now.
I don't know about others, but when I think Rowland Hilder was an illustrator, as was John Piper, for numerous books and articles and guides, I see absolutely no substantive difference between good, honest illustration and the generally accepted view of fine art: I have huge respect for illustrators - rather more than I have for some fine artists, to tell the truth.
Rob has a view on this which Amanda has challenged, and I don't know which I agree with more .... Rob's examples are unquestionably fine art, Amanda suggests the selection is narrow (as in, history painting - although it was contemporary at the time, of course: it's narrative painting really) - so I'll offer my own view (mind you, that view is fundamentally that it doesn't really matter very much): fine art is work you choose to do, deriving from your imagination, and not from a client's brief. It's work that you conceived entirely on your own, and you are offering to the public to take or leave as they wish; you'd do it even if you thought you'd never sell it.
Now, this won't do, will it? Because whenever we paint anything, we're hoping that someone else will appreciate it, and preferably buy it. Even so, it's as near as I can come, even though it doesn't include such concepts as quality: I might conceive of a quite unique artistic subject which I can't actually transform into reality - I might make a god-awful hash of it; it might revolt the soul to gaze upon it. So it can't just be about intention.
And I think that proves Rob's fundamental point - "There's not a classification that can be applied that has universal acceptance. So this thread is never going to reach a conclusion."
Posted
Thanks for your carefully worded post Robert. I think it earns you a signature tune: 'Venus the Peacemaker' from Gustav Holst's 'Planet Suite'.
I've decided it gives me more pleasure to paint rather than talk about it. So my motivation will remain what Bernard Dunstan called 'that first compulsive eye-catch'. It's my way of trying to create Fine Art. Whether or not it will help pay the mortgage is not important.. As with Winston Churchill I'm happiest when actively painting it gives me great satisfaction.
Edited
by robK2