That one is quite simple. There is no "art" in "fine art". "Fine art" simply means photographs marketed as (expensive) decor. The marketing requires certain characteristics, mainly that the subject is intemporal (hence the popularity of landscape), that the colours will match the room furniture (hence the popularity of black and white) and that the image follows current trends and fashions. The milky look is still a current trend especially amongst buyers who, shall I say?, do not follow the latest design fashions very actively.
Jerome,
I would say that the above is one reasonable, (perhaps, overly cynical) definition that might very well apply to much of photography marketed as , "Fine Art". Still, I'd argue, that this does not represent most of the works museums collect as "Fine Art". Their hope is to sample some of the most important photographic works destined to be acclaimed and affirmed over future generations, as exceptionally worthy "Fine Art" treasures. But what's to choose from and who chooses?
There's a wide spectrum of photography reaching far beyond the more vulgar needs of mere contemporary, (and therefore
"transiently fashionable"), decoration. "Fine Art Photographs" are those images that seem, to the "experts", to have lasting exceptional value worth being collected by museums. The selections are made not by decorators or fashionistas, but rather by scholars, curators and collectors , "Art for Art's Sake", for the enjoyment of future generations. The concept of “Art for art’s sake.” (“L’art pour l’art”) appears to have been first articulated in public by the French philosopher, Victor Cousin (1792-1867):
“We must have religion for religion’s sake, morality for morality’s sake, as with art for art’s sake...the beautiful cannot be the way to what is useful, or to what is good, or to what is holy; it leads only to itself.”**
So there's mainly commercially promoted "decorative" work labelled as "Fine Art" and then a second group considered much rarer. These face hard and even unfair competition to even
enter the selection process to be also considered "fine Art", (supposedly in the nature of "Art for Art's Sake"). The latter should include some truly
exceptional works.
Notwithstanding these best intentions, selection processes are not guided by some scientific objectivity but rather by intelligent and highly informed experience and even "guessing"as well as first class "contacts" and access to the process itself. This means that many really great images are passed over while, while some rather undistinguished, seemingly meritless photographs, can get selected by curators in their hunt for the best "Fine Art" for their permanent collections and exhibits!
Still, in time, enough of the distinguished original works will have been saved for posterity. Anyway, that's both my contention and hope. Meanwhile, if you'd ask me what kind of photographs am I trying to make, "Fine Art", I'd reply. After all, that is the direction of all my aspirations!
Asher
** Source