Can a photograph be fine art? If by “fine” you mean in some sense “good” or “better” then of course.*

In fact, the question betrays an ignorance of art per se , since that’s actually a question about the medium. Would the “Pieta” not be art if it were made of bronze instead of marble? Would “Starry Night” cease being art if it were done in acrylic? Or, as to film vs digital or cameras vs paint brushes – would “Starry Night” be fail the “art test” if it were done with camel’s hair brushes instead of sable?

Is a paperback of “War and Peace” lesser art than a hardback? Would it be more art if it were hand lettered?

These are trivial and superficial questions that completely miss the point of art.

Photography is a set of tools and techniques… as is music, and writing, and painting and sculpture… and so on.

The tools and the medium of presentation may appeal to some, and not to others, but in no case do they determine the art.

So what makes art “fine?”

I’d suggest at least three criteria, the first being endurance.

“Endures” is essential for fine art, but not sufficient.

Perhaps a clue resides in “great” art. Consider these: Picasso; Rembrandt; Rodin; DaVinci; Bach; Beethoven; Tolstoy; Shakespeare. Painting; sculpture; music; writing.

These people have all created great (certainly “fine”) art, and their works endure; they provide fresh engagement on each encounter. They hang on walls for multiple viewings; become dog-eared through repeated readings; bear listening over and over again.

That leads of course to “why?” and the hint lies in the list of names itself: they are names of human beings, not titles of pieces. For these artists, “fine” has risen to “great” and that we know their names provides the clue: their art endures because of its reach into the human condition. Because of that, we remember the human names of those whose insight was so acute.

Thus, equally essential with endurance is the second criteria: that fine art touches something innate to the human experience within the audience.

Yet a grandmother will peruse a photo scrapbook endlessly, and experience deeply human sentiments each time.

So regarding fine art, then “endure” means “timeless” and “humanity” means universal: these will cross beyond a particular lifetime, and often beyond a particular culture.

How are these criteria achieved then? By engaging the audience in an internal conversation. It could be an intellectual or an emotional conversation. Beethoven takes us on an emotional trip; Shakespeare causes us to ponder human foibles. Kandinsky & Magritte extract and re-arrange an essence of form, making the conversation less clear, but no less powerful.

What adds the “fine” to “fine art” here is the variety and depth of that internal conversation. Does the piece continue to engage over time? Is the conversation slightly different each time? In short: does the viewer grow from each subsequent engagement? These are all true of true “fine art” whether it’s music, or writing, or painting or sculpture or photography.

And like the other arts, photography can be representational or abstract. It can spark the conversation thru form or design, or by way of direct representation.

Strong photographic composition can be like music in its effect; representation can be like writing. Form can inspire or provide solice.

Is your work “fine art?” The test is whether you can hang it on your wall and not grow tired of it. Whether it engages you as you pass by… whether you pause before it and ponder.

How does one become a fine artist? The same way as in all the arts: constant practice, and the ability both to observe, and to look into your own soul and being.

The tools of photography offer much faster feedback than any of the other arts, and that in turn provides the opportunity (and the obligation) to grow and improve faster.

Finally: do not look elsewhere, but only inside. Your contribution is fine art only if it springs from you alone. The third criteria that all fine art shares is the unique perspective of the artist. For a time, the audience experiences the world as another being.

Does this mean you have failed if you do not become the next Matisse? Of course not, but there is nothing wrong with understanding art then and aiming high. Place the target at the best you can do; raise the target every day, and shoot.

——-

*”Fine Art” can be a confusing phrase, since there are two uses of it. In the sense used above, I’m talking about “quality” as the primary definition. But “fine art” is also a mere category of photography: one dedicated to capturing beauty or emotion. This is as distinct from “wedding” or “commercial” or “scientific” (etc) photography. In this use of the phrase, it’s perfectly possible (and I see it all the time) to have really crappy “fine” art. (The current fad for hyper-HDR is my current favorite example of bad “fine art.”)