Відео

Hi Robert, thank you for your comment. A significant factor in the pricing difference between photography and painting is that paintings are original artworks, each one a unique creation. In contrast, photographs can be easily duplicated, which affects their market value. While it's true that a layer of technology (the camera) exists between the photographer and the image, it's important to remember that the artistic vision and skill behind the camera are just as vital. Both mediums have their unique qualities and artistic merits, but the ease of reproduction in photography does play a role in the price difference. Kind regards Martin

Glad you enjoyed it Saeed!

Absolutely agree Daniel! John Ruskin's insight in ‘On Art and Life’ is noted. Embracing the idea that "precision is the enemy of creativity" can truly liberate ones artistic approach. It encourages a more spontaneous and authentic approach to art and life as you point out, allowing for greater expression and personal freedom. Many thanks Martin

Thank you, Jann, for your comment. Just to clarify, I'm not a photographer but an artist who uses photography as part of my workflow. My work is subjective and designed to appeal to a select audience, which I am very comfortable with. It's all about creating art that resonates deeply with those who appreciate it. Regards Martin

Thanks John !

That's wonderful to hear! The process of taking photographs and editing can be incredibly rewarding. Keep exploring and experimenting-it's a fantastic journey!

Hi Hubert, I completely understand where you're coming from. The joy of capturing life's moments without the pressure of creating "fine art" can be incredibly fulfilling. Often, it's those spontaneous, genuine moments that transform into fine art in our eyes. Art is highly subjective, and what's considered "fine art" can vary greatly. Kind regards Martin

Awesome, thank you!

Hi Steve, thank you for your thoughtful response. You've raised some important points that warrant discussion. Art as Fiction vs. Reality: Art can indeed be grounded in reality just as much as it can be fictional. Realism has always been a significant part of art history, and your preference for realism is a testament to its lasting impact. Picasso's work, while controversial and unconventional, reflects a different artistic philosophy and historical context. Public Determination of Fine Art: I agree that money alone shouldn't determine what is considered fine art. Art should be accessible to everyone, regardless of wealth. The internet and affordable books have indeed democratised access to art, allowing more people to appreciate and engage with it. Realism in Painting vs. Photography: Your point about the flexibility of painters to alter scenes is well-taken. Photographers do face limitations with what's in front of the lens, but tools like Photoshop allow them to make artistic adjustments. Both mediums require skill and share principles like composition, though the techniques and challenges differ. Art and Offense: Art can indeed provoke strong reactions and even offend. The intent, however, should be to express, not to deliberately offend. Seeking to please everyone can stifle creativity, but intentional offense is a different matter. Thank you for this engaging discussion. Regards Martin

Hello Martin. thank you for your kind response towards my reply. One of the main things I would like to state here is why neither money, nor the public can determine what is Fine Art. Combined, the public can only determine the popularity of a work. They are unlikely to know exactly what the artist's real intent is behind a work. A few years back I submitted a photo in to a global competition just to see how it would fair. It quickly rose to first place and remained there until the final day when it was knocked down to second place. I can only remember that the winner was a Russian. My photo was out of the camera, digital, with no post editing. While the photo appeared to meet the requirements for Fine Art, it held a big secret which only I knew. The photo was taken with the camera set to Auto. My eye sight prevented me from taking the picture otherwise. So there was very little skill involved. It wasn't even a work of Art, never mind Fine Art. Art is never accidental or automatic. The picture's composition was perfect though but simple. What makes Art "Art" is the skill within the artist. Fine Art might not be the most apt words. to use Fine Art is a refinement. It may be a masterpiece that displays the great level of skill that the artist has achieved. I have noticed that some photographers will mention "Art and Photography." In that is an implication that photography is set apart from Art. They don't help their own cause for having photography recognised as an art. There is a very common mistake made by many photographers. It is a mistake that has been creeping in to pencil drawings and paintings because people are using photos as models to base their work on. The mistake disqualifies a piece from being Fine Art as taught in schools and Art Books. This is the mistake: An arm might be seen leaving the frame of the picture and then come back in again. Fingers cut off. Feet cut off at the ankles. The classically recognised cut off points are either not known or observed. Such photos, etc, might otherwise be very good but fall down on composition. And thanks again.

Hi Bruno, I'm always open to constructive criticism and meaningful discussions. Could you please clarify the specific points where you found errors or confusions in my presentations?

@@MartinOsnerIt is a fair comment. It will require some time, my time (and I am not selling anything ;0), but to be fair I will do it.

Thank you for your feedback. Britannia Dictionary: My mistake, I meant the Encyclopedia Britannica. Honest mistake. While Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, it also undergoes extensive reviews and citations. It's often a starting point for research, though not the final authority. Your skepticism is understandable, and I always encourage cross-referencing multiple sources for accuracy. Spelling ‘Giclée’, well spotted, I'll have this corrected. Defining Art Photography: My aim is to discuss, and engage this topic with my subscribers, and this I will continue to do unabated.

I completely agree with you. Photography is undeniably an art form. The definition of art itself justifies photography's place within it. The democratization of photography might have led some traditional artists to dismiss it, but that doesn't diminish its artistic value.

You raise an excellent point. Many people confuse minimalism with fine art photography, and it's understandable. However, fine art photography is defined by images created according to the artist's vision, using photography as a medium for creative expression. The goal is to convey an idea, message, or emotion. The confusion grows because there are so many tools and techniques available to alter an image: filters, exposures, artificial lighting, darkroom processes, computer editing, multiple images, distorted lenses, AI, paint, and more. Given this flexibility, anyone who takes a picture with the intent to express something can be considered a fine art photographer, including minimalists!

​@@MartinOsner 100% - I think the important thing is for us to enjoy photography - both as an image maker and as an audience member

Thanks for your comment John! As I have mentioned, defining fine art photography is tricky because it's so subjective. I'm glad you enjoyed the talk. Regards Martin

You make an excellent point! Michelangelo's work on the Sistine Chapel embodies both artistry and craftsmanship. Craft involves skill and precision, yielding predictable results, while art embraces creativity and risk. These elements can coexist, blending the boundaries between art and craft. Ultimately, it's up to the viewer to interpret the balance between the two. It's definitely not a binary distinction.

Thank you so much 😊

Many thanks!

Agreed Jon...Photography, like paint, is indeed a medium. Its classification as art depends on the creator's intent and purpose. Not all photography qualifies as fine art-documentary or forensic photography, for instance, serves different functions. Fine art, sometimes misunderstood as "pure art," exists solely for its own sake, without any utilitarian purpose. It can be created using any medium, including photography, regardless of its appearance. The key is the intent behind its creation. As you mentioned, artists like Jeff Koons demonstrate that even unconventional materials can be used to create fine art. So, it’s the creator's vision and purpose that define fine art, not the medium or the appearance of the work. Kind regards, Martin

@@MartinOsner You got it! Fine Art has nothing to do with appearance or medium. It would be better and easier to understand if we called it "Pure Art" which is a better definition. Which is what it was supposed to be called in the first place.

Wow, thanks! Much appreciated!

Hi AJ, thank you for your comment. Absolutely, you're spot on! While art is indeed subjective and personal preference plays a significant role, the societal context and collective opinion also shape our understanding of what constitutes 'art.' It's this delicate balance between individual interpretation and societal norms that makes the art world so dynamic and intriguing. Regards Martin

What did you find funny?

Thank you so much for your message and kind words. It's great to hear that my discussions have resonated with you. Regards Martin

I'm intrigued by your strong stance against fine art photography. Could you share more about why you feel this way?

You are more than welcome!

I still feel the rules of composition and technical photographic control are important, serving as a foundation rather than a ceiling. While they provide guidance, it's essential to push boundaries and explore beyond them to unleash creativity

I agree with you, Leonard Missone's work, and his dedication to his unique style, especially shooting into the light and capturing atmospheric scenes, showcases his visionary approach to photography. Missone's mastery with darkroom techniques and retouching, truly set him apart as an artist. His ability to find beauty and artistry in everyday scenes, like the photo of the carts in the street you mentioned, highlights his keen eye for composition and storytelling. Missone's work undoubtedly deserves recognition and appreciation for its artistic merit and technical excellence.

Absolutely, that Edward J. Steichen photo is indeed outstanding! I would love to have a piece like that in my own collection too.

Hi Simon, your journey from photographer to artist is inspiring. I am pleased to hear that you to see the camera as a tool for creative expression, akin to a paintbrush. Regards Martin

@@MartinOsner I love your work. I also became a painter during lockdown, but my strengths lie with a camera. I have a number of friends who are painters and they see me equally as an artist. I think sometimes we fine art photographers often question if we are artists. We are without a doubt true artists.

Hi Jim, I'm glad you appreciated the mention of Stieglitz and the historical struggle of getting photography accepted as art. Stieglitz is a testament to the richness and depth of photography as an art form.!

@@MartinOsner Indeed. His intimate portraits of Georgia O’Keefe are beautiful love poems.

Hi Sam, thank you so much for your kind words! I'm glad you enjoyed the video and found value in the discussion. It's still important to recognise that fine art photography encompasses a wide range of styles and techniques. Regards Martin

Thank you Josh and Rosy, much appreciated!

Hi Steve, your perspective on the evolving meaning of art in the digital age is thought-provoking. While the internet has undoubtedly influenced how we perceive and create art, it's important to recognise that art's essence remains subjective and multifaceted. Indeed, art encompasses more than just the finished product-it embodies the artist's skill, intention, and the viewer's interpretation. The concept of 'Fine Art' may indeed be contentious, as it's often shaped by individual perspectives and societal norms. However, this diversity of opinions is what makes art so rich and dynamic. Whether it's a photographer striving for monochrome perfection or an artist pushing boundaries, the quest for recognition and meaning in art is an enduring "never ending" journey. Regards Martin

@@MartinOsner Hi Martin. Thank you for your reply. If we go to an Art Gallery, we might see on its walls paintings considered by "experts" to be "Fine Art" A child can go in to the gallery and can see a painting of Leda and the Swan. To that young mind it is an image of a woman having a sexual encounter with a swan. The story will need to be explained. But is the story just an excuse to serve up bestiality? So even though well crafted, the image isn't so fine after all. It may gain a space when a nude photograph may be denied one. The nude may be labelled obscene. Also on the wall might be a picture of a man being executed by firing squad. It is a case of things that should not be are allowed but what has every right to be may be protested about. That shows the sickness that exists in society. Then there is the photographer who insists that if it isn't monochrome it isn't "Fine Art". The view is actually an insult to those who much prefer the wonders of colour. Kind regards to you in return, and thank you.

@stevejones1682 You raise important points about the subjective nature of art and the contradictions in societal perceptions. Art can evoke different interpretations and reactions, and what's considered fine art by some may be seen differently by others. The insistence on monochrome photography as the only true form of fine art overlooks the beauty of colour photography. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and starting this conversation.

@@MartinOsner thank you for that. If i may further - A practice from when I was a child - and we still see the practice today, even on youtube, images with dots or whatever to cover what is seemingly offensive. To my mind that practice is offensive, not only that but is obscene as it furthers what is an unhealthy regard towards a person's own body. Some can't even go to the doctor if needed due to that ill lesson. Some gain an unhealthy idea that it is ok to go flashing in public. Neither attitude has a healthy regard. It is sad that some can't see the beauty of the nude figure due to having an unhealthy regard. As i see it, a healthy body is likely to be a beautiful body. It seems to be that falsehood is encouraged and what has every right to be is not. I could go on, and I nearly did, but I'll leave it there for now.

It‘s not that simple.

@@janradtke8318 How enigmatic, but the wise man said 'if you consider art to be a ten minute exposure sooner or later a dog is going to piss on your tripod leg'.

Hi Steve, Your perspective on the distinction between fine art photography and mere aestheticism is insightful. Indeed, true fine art transcends surface appearances and delves into deeper intellectual and conceptual realms. The ability to articulate ideas and provoke thought distinguishes fine art from mere visual appeal. While the label of 'fine art photographer' is often self-assumed, true recognition within the artistic community comes from those who acknowledge the depth and significance of an artist's work. Ultimately, it's the depth behind the image that defines its status as fine art. Regards Martin

Thank you for your comment. No, I am not imposing my opinion on anyone in this discussion, however, you do raise important points. It seems like you have a deeply personal approach to photography that is informed by your neuro-diversity and life experiences. Your perspective challenges conventional notions of fine art photography and highlights the subjective nature of artistic expression. Your emphasis on personal enjoyment and satisfaction in your work is refreshing and reminds us that art is ultimately about self-expression and fulfilment. While some may label your work as not fitting traditional criteria for fine art photography, your ability to create meaningful images that resonate with you is what truly matters. Your journey as a photographer is inherently valuable, regardless of how it aligns with established standards or expectations.

Hi Graham, thank you for your comment. I am intrigued. Could you please elaborate further? Regards Martin

@MartinOsner Sure, Martin. Some years back I supported my partner during her return to Uni on a Fine Arts degree. It became apparent that they were more interested in what the 'students' said about their 'artwork' than about the artistic value of the work itself. My then partner offered a work for her final exam that was both creative, unique to her quite unique life experience, expressive of the point, and well crafted. She received a grudging 2:1 pass. Her friend did the ubiquitous Toilet in the centre of the room thing and said some 'shit' about it that was expected of her by the bloody insufferable, naff pc tutors, and recieved a 1:1. The whole course was politically biased and 'woke' as a green poppy. I was and remain unimpressed.

@grahampovey8073 Thanks for sharing, now I understand. It's disappointing to hear about your partner's experience with the Fine Arts degree program. Artistic expression should be valued based on creativity and individual experience, rather than conforming to specific ideologies. Regards Martin

@@MartinOsner entirely agree. The 'tutors' were a bunch of narcissistic morons in my studied opinion. Particularly considering my then partner was no novice. She already had works displayed worldwide in embassies and in private homes. She had no need to mimic the arty -farty fadists so loved by them.

I think they meant Wall Art :)

@@dylangarcia3696 If they did, they called Fine Art.

Hi Andrew, it's interesting how different sources can offer contrasting perspectives on what constitutes fine art photography. This highlights the depths of this discussion. I'm glad my explanation resonated with you more. You're welcome!

@@MartinOsner Just 16 seconds in, but the questions you asked really strike me as philosophical.

@@MartinOsner What you said about the definition that fine art photography is a style of photography is valid, but I'd add it is also circular. Strip away all the adjectives and it is basically saying art is art. Someone could ask me what an apple is. If I say an apple is an apple that it technically true, but the person asking about what an apple is obviously doesn't know what an apple is or they would not be asking so me telling them an apple is an apple, while technically true, leaves the person who asked that question no more informed than when they started. If I explained what type of fruit it was or, better yet, handed them an apple then some information is actually being imparted.

Glad you enjoyed it!

Hi Jan, You've touched on some complex and often controversial aspects of the art world, particularly regarding the valuation and sale of artworks. Indeed, art can serve as a vehicle for various financial strategies, including tax optimisation and potentially even money laundering, due to its subjective valuation and sometimes opaque transactions. In the scenario you've outlined, where a photographer like Peter Lik sells a photo to a friend for a high price, there could be potential tax benefits for both parties involved, as well as significant PR value for Lik. However, executing such a transaction would likely require careful legal and financial planning to ensure compliance with tax laws & regulations to avoid investigation. But I think in todays world, ethics and honesty are not on the top of the agenda within society, and very little surprises one anymore. But to be fair one is a innocent until proven guilty. While it's true that the art market can be susceptible to manipulation and exploitation for financial gain, it's also important to note that many legitimate transactions occur within the art world, driven by genuine appreciation for artistic expression and cultural value. Regards Martin

Glad you enjoyed it, and thank you for your kind words. Regards Martin

Yes, that's correct! besides the few I mentioned in my discussion, many other artists embraced photography as part of their workflow. Norman Rockwell, known for his iconic illustrations depicting American life, often utilised photography as part of his creative process. He would stage scenes with models and props, carefully composing the elements to achieve the desired narrative and emotional impact in his paintings.

My pleasure Rick!