“Is there such a thing as “Professional standards” in Fine Art photography?

[AlHam]

As a student photographer interested in fine art photography my current assignment has me researching professional standards inherent to fine art photography. It is my opinion that there are no professional standards, at least in the creation of fine art print, for a number of different reasons:

• Fine art, that is art considered to be created for aesthetics and intellectual purposes and judged for its beauty or meaningfulness, is created in the artists own vision and therefore to have any “standards” would be to restrict the creativity of the artist.
• Fine art photographs are not normally commissioned at the outset and therefore there are no standards to meet when dealing with clients as there would be for say a portrait photographer.
• As fine art is not relied on to communicate the truth such as documentary or photojournalism a fine art photograph is not beholden to it.

When the artwork goes for sale then a whole host of other professional standards come into play as there would be for any retailer but these are not specific to the fine art photography specialisation.

What are your thoughts? Are there any professional standards for fine art photographers?”

 

[Doug Kerr]

Welcome, A,

Well said.

Although probably not prescribed by any recognized "code of conduct" for this particular profession, but perhaps well recognized by our society, and perhaps even recognized by our laws, we would expect a photographer to respect any human subjects (not necessarily a simple notion - what about people at a distance in a street scene, etc., what if he says to a female model, "You're really cute" ), and to respect such things as natural structures, historical artifacts, and the like.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Asher Kelman]

Welcome, A,

Well said.

Although probably not prescribed by any recognized "code of conduct" for this particular profession, but perhaps well recognized by our society, and perhaps even recognized by our laws, we would expect a photographer to respect any human subjects (not necessarily a simple notion - what about people at a distance in a street scene, etc., what if he says to a female model, "You're really cute" ), and to respect such things as natural structures, historical artifacts, and the like.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug,

Well put!

I doubt Al was asking about our behavior when we purport to be practitioners of photography to be considered “Fine Art”

u do feel, however, that many a model would gladly undress for a picture dealing with form and beauty as opposed to been plastered in men’s magazines.

I do expected all to follow standards of respect for our collaborators.

We also have to followethics in disclosure: how many copies, is this a silver gelatin true photograph or a digital image printed with a jet spray of pigments and so forth. These characteristics also relate to expected longevity under certain curated museum or collectors conditions.

So these are real standards of honesty and disclosure that are clear and mutually expected and understood!

Asher

 

[Tom dinning]

Which came first: the category, title or subset of Fine Art Photography or the characteristics common to some photographs that appeared similar and a desire formulated to group them under a single heading?

Since FAP is a subset of photography I can assume it contains the same characteristics of all photographs. This would include means of production, a communicative element, a symbolic nature since no photograph is the thing being photographs, an interpretive presence and a commercial application. I might have missed a few things but by this time you might have got my drift.

It would be expected that any subset would have elements that are peculiar to only the members of that group.
I see none of that in any FAP I have seen displayed as such in any gallery, studio, magazine or web page.

I haven’t seen them all, mind you. I’m generalising. Then again, so does the classification of FAP by the photographic community. I doubt if any two photographers would agree on the classification procedure, let alone exemplary examples to be sighted as guidelines.

So here’s my guidelines for then prospective FAP.

1. Call a frog a duck enough times and people will call the frog a duck.

2. Be pretentious. Snobbery is hard to deal with when you’re a member of the general public. Snobbish behaviour is taken as intelligence by the less I well,informed.

3. Make the photo big, monochromatic and with a Matt finish.

4. Limited edition printing. But like pieces of the cross, there may be more distributed than anyone could reasonably count.

5. A high price fetches the attention of those with money. The word ‘investment’ goes down well.

6. Nudes are good subject matter as long as it’s not a male. That may change in the near future what with LGBTQ and the progressive women’s movement.

7. Publish a book.

8. Own your own gallery.

9. Hide your snapshots of the kids and Ibiza holidays.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Tom,

Your answer can best be explained by your own nature and good and bad experiences with the camera and sexual exploitation threats to young women and your impression that art buyers twirling their champagne glasses.’, as effete snobs!

But outside of your sphere of personal angst of the arrogance of others, there is still established standards, “by expectation” of fine art photography.

But first let me address your encyclopedic and rather wise comments!

Which came first: the category, title or subset of Fine Art Photography or the characteristics common to some photographs that appeared similar and a desire formulated to group them under a single heading?

Since FAP is a subset of photography I can assume it contains the same characteristics of all photographs. This would include means of production, a communicative element, a symbolic nature since no photograph is the thing being photographs, an interpretive presence and a commercial application. I might have missed a few things but by this time you might have got my drift.

It would be expected that any subset would have elements that are peculiar to only the members of that group.
I see none of that in any FAP I have seen displayed as such in any gallery, studio, magazine or web page.

I haven’t seen them all, mind you. I’m generalising. Then again, so does the classification of FAP by the photographic community. I doubt if any two photographers would agree on the classification procedure, let alone exemplary examples to be sighted as guidelines.

So here’s my guidelines for then prospective FAP.

1. Call a frog a duck enough times and people will call the frog a duck.

Art starts in the imagination it’s creator. If (s)he imagines that “frog” as a “duck”, that’s the artistic choice, it it was apt, it will likely work! Calling objects by another name, such as ray, snake or a piece of turd is to provide richness and color to language. That’s how all cultures work!

2. Be pretentious. Snobbery is hard to deal with when you’re a member of the general public. Snobbish behaviour is taken as intelligence by the less I well,informed.

it’s necessary sometimes to wear a cloak of some identity, for example to dress like a gentleman or as a cowboy or gay man available for a date. What may seem “pretentiousness” can be actually the character assumed to go with that art!

3. Make the photo big, monochromatic and with a Matt finish.

Wall space is limited and expensive. CostaLs of employing college- or museum-trained assistants is very high. So what is sold has to maximize the few sales. Folk today, who are successful at work, often have large homes with huge walls to be covered. The larger pictures therefore are in demand/ for this market. Apartment dwellers tend to buy smaller prints.

4. Limited edition printing. But like pieces of the cross, there may be more distributed than anyone could reasonably count. For sure all those relics are fabricated in the past 1,500 years as each Cathedral with its miracles needs a “genuine” hallowed relic to buttress the attraction to millions of Prayer-tourists with money for penance and candles to be lit! Limited editions are a good idea if the artist then does new work instead of simply printing more, likebprinting

5. A high price fetches the attention of those with money. The word ‘investment’ goes down well.

High prices, say $60,000 for a Richard Learoyd Cibachrome is quite reasonable as each is a single image with no copies! It likely Costa $10,000 to produce it and the gallery has to make money. Likely the artist naked about $30,000 lestcteacel expenses from the UK to USA. If he sells 10, thats $300,000 and likely that’s pretty wrll

6. Nudes are good subject matter as long as it’s not a male. That may change in the near future what with LGBTQ and the progressive women’s movement.

Since the time of three Pharaoh, males were the dominant form in art and erotic art. The return of theHebrews from exile brought the idea of only one God, so now the female erotic god forms were abolished.

in all this time, Greek and Roman art celebrated the male Nude.

With Christianity eclipsing Judaism and assumed as the religion of Rome, they took over being the issuer of righteousness and reintroduced worship of the female Godess in the form of Mary and her statues and all the erect penises of Greek and Roman art were banished!

In photography, We still have this echo of Maryism, where staring at breasts might be appreciation of both women and art, but male genitalia clubs only be considered not for civil society just for perverts!

7. Publish a book.

A book on photography allows the ordinary person who love the work to take home a collection of pictures for about $40 to $100. This I find is very democratic and allows me to share with my family works I could never afford to own.

8. Own your own gallery.

Here perhaps you refer to the amazingly entrepreneurial Aussie, Lik who convinces folk with bright lights, that his photographs use unique processes no one else can match!

9. Hide your snapshots of the kids and Ibiza holidays.

Perhaps!

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Now to the quest for “Standards”.

Since we could fruitlessly argue on some agreed definitions of Art, Fine Art and Fine Photographic Art, it’s likely far more productive to start the process by looking back and identifying what is purchased and collected under these banners.

The purpose Museums of Art helps us enormously here, as they only are only concerned with price when they need to get funds to acquire works or to price a piece that they intend to sell to curate their collection or survive harder times.

Unlike the motivations of many Art buyers, Museums are not there for just being profitable.

Admittedly, choice of works might be degraded by pandering to popular demands rather than a conviction of the artistic worth of a piece. Still, with such caveats, one can broadly say that works collected for posterity for public benefit are those society has come to think of as worthy beyond mere fashion of the time.

With this established, I will attempt to present some accepted concept of standards.

Asher

 

[Tom dinning]

An historical perspective might play a part, Ash, but I wouldn’t go so far as to agree the Pharaohs played a part.
We are talking current times, I’m assuming. Let’s say the last 200 years. That aught to cover everything.

The old images certainly have a prime place in a gallery or museum, not for their size or technical proficiency but on their timeliness alone.
Along with that, images which depict some historic moment would get a place on any wall.
Significant changes in processes and technology have had a mention from time to time.
Even the ubiquitous news shot draws our attention.
There are many images which provoke individuals to action that have changed the course of human history and efforts to make the planet a better place.

These and many more are what might be referred to as special but I’m not sure if they fall under the umbrella of fine art.
For me they are expressions of the photographers creativity in the extreme and deserve as much praise and attention as they can get. In addition, anyone who wants to own one should certainly be asked a high price.

But what can be seen in the average Fine Art gallery are less likely to have any significance in a generation or two down the track.

To use Lik as an example of Australian fine art is to say my dust man is a fastidious man. For all the noise he makes the streets still remain as they always were: just streets.
I recall a time when Lik opened his gallery in Cairnes. I dropped in for a look. Nice big colourful picture. Nothing out of the ordinary. An attendant approached me and asked if I was interested in the work. “Not yet,” I replied. “Do you have anything interesting to show me?”. “Do you know who photographed this work?” She curtly replied. “It’s Peter Lik” she added.
“It’s OK. I don’t know who that is. He probably doesn’t know me either”.

Most of us ordinary people would take only a few seconds to assess any image and decide the significance of it to them.
But for those who are deemed to know more, of course there will be more ‘standards’. Since the ordinary person on the street outnumber the more sophisticated ones, I know where the money is and what will last; at least while I’m alive and here to enjoy it.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Tom,

The Pharaohic fresco or the baked painting of males nudes on a Greek urn are the “photographs” of another time: just captured more laboriously and with greater skill and humor!

I think we can define art in two ways: what is out on the market and what is filtered by humans that value it to have it survive. Somewhere in that are reflections of the light on our society.

The best of it, whatever they might be, is fine art.

As we can hunt through museums of the last 200 years and then there would be enough examples to start to categorize the sorts of images we might value the most now and perhaps long into the future.

I doubt if any of mine would be amongst them but I could pick a few of yours if I was ever given the curator’s job. That might come to pass!

I would hope some of mine would be valued and treasures, but that’s just a personal narcissistic whim of no consequence!

Asher

 

[Tom dinning]

There is a crack in the plaster somewhere and I can’t quite see it in this light.

Whenever there is a human construct for an idea we will fail to agree as individuals. This is because we use such words as Art and beauty and value as if they belong to the object. In that way it will be expected that all of us will see the beauty and those who don’t are blind.

You might very well say your photos are worthy art pieces and I would accept that as long as you didn’t expect me to agree with you.
Do you see the difference, Ash?

There are those among us who make decisions for the whole. The All-ness of terminology and words invariably never applies to such things as allusive as art, fine or not. A piece of work in a gallery is not fine art: it is called fine art by some, even most, but in essence it is just a photograph. And I’ll leave it for you to tell us what a photograph is. Because in some other part of the world it might be named something different.

When we look at anything we do not see it by it’s name. We see it and give it a name. People give some images the name fine art. Some don’t. How can you define with any sort of clarity and agreement what the standards are for such things when we don’t agree on what such things are?

All we can rely on is our faulty judgement. That some people know what they are talking about and we are obliged to believe them and agree to agree. Or not. So, if you come up with some standards we can ALL agree on we are home and hosed.

 

[Asher Kelman]

As a student photographer interested in fine art photography my current assignment has me researching professional standards inherent to fine art photography. It is my opinion that there are no professional standards, at least in the creation of fine art print, for a number of different reasons:

• Fine art, that is art considered to be created for aesthetics and intellectual purposes and judged for its beauty or meaningfulness, is created in the artists own vision and therefore to have any “standards” would be to restrict the creativity of the artist.
• Fine art photographs are not normally commissioned at the outset and therefore there are no standards to meet when dealing with clients as there would be for say a portrait photographer.
• As fine art is not relied on to communicate the truth such as documentary or photojournalism a fine art photograph is not beholden to it.

When the artwork goes for sale then a whole host of other professional standards come into play as there would be for any retailer but these are not specific to the fine art photography specialisation.

What are your thoughts? Are there any professional standards for fine art photographers?”

You might be more comfortable with thinking of “Fine Art Photography” as examples of photography which are saved for posterity and prized by museums around the world and whose worth to the community increases over time.

Asher

 

[Robert Watcher]

without reading everything in all the replies...

.... as a photographer I see no value in a term like Fine Art Photography, other than as a marketing ploy to sell prints to make money. Would i use it? Probably - being that selling my photography is how I have made my living for my family over the last 45 years. Would I charge high prices for those prints, even though I would never purchase or invest in such things myself? If people see enough value in my work and are willing to turn the money over to me,YES. Anne and I do lots of charitable works and love giving gifts to people even things related to our skills, that the recipients cherish. But if I am being hiring or commissioned, my value is “What the market will bare”. Of course if no one sees the value in my photos regardless of what term I use for them, they only are of value to me possibly - so who cares if it is Fine Art Photography, even if it the greatest image ever.

However I would never be so presumptuous as to conclude that those prints that someone decided to find appealing, or possibly see as an investment - make me something special or even that the photograph is anything special. Well let’s put it this way, it would be a great danger to me as a human being to be lured into becoming puffed up by believing such things.

Years ago when photography mattered, everyone was arguing back and forth about what constituted a Professional photographer. I knew I was one. How? Not based on the quality of my work or abilities - but because people paid me to take pictures for them and bought prints and picture frames and albums from me. The thing is that there were photographers that charged Sears prices and they have very happy customers. We’re those ones Pro? Yes! We’re they less Pro than me because they got $50 per job and I got $5000? No! I always related the term to sports. The difference between an Amateur figure skater and a Professional figure skater is that one does it for the love and hopes they can get subsidized so they can keep in doing what they love or aspire to —- and the other is on the payroll. Amateurs could have the best skills in the world, while fills-ins who never reached any high level are Professionals.


It’s always been strange to me why people get hung up on terms. Especially when it comes to one person dictating what a term defines. That was a compelling reason why I refused to signup to Professional Photographers Associations during my active years in the business - some group of men and women who were determined to be authorities in that genre, dictating what style was relevant. Also a reason I would NEVER degrade myself by entering a competition - or thinking that I am something if I happened to win. I do not want anyone who does not have a personal vested interest in me or my success, determining the value of my photographs. On the other hand I do not have a need for someone to validate my photography. Never did, even when I was beginning. I cannot grow and improve that way. Do I like people seeing my pics. Of course if they enjoy it.

Another reason to not be too concerned about what Fine Art Photography means —- there are no such markets to make money from anyone, if that is the purpose of trying to build a business or reputation around your photos. Photography as a means to make a living is virtually dead and there is no future for it. Related to one of your bullet points, there are about as many humans interested in the purity of photography, as there are people who stick to the purity of listening to music on vinyl records.

I’m probably way off topic, but have been in a general bummed out mood this week and haven’t spieled like this for years - from when people actually valued the opinion of ones with lots of real experience, to enhance their own take on things. Yes I am probably old fashioned and out of touch.

Hey I feel better and can on with my day. LOL

 

[AlHam]

Welcome, A,

Well said.

Although probably not prescribed by any recognized "code of conduct" for this particular profession, but perhaps well recognized by our society, and perhaps even recognized by our laws, we would expect a photographer to respect any human subjects (not necessarily a simple notion - what about people at a distance in a street scene, etc., what if he says to a female model, "You're really cute" ), and to respect such things as natural structures, historical artifacts, and the like.

Best regards,

Doug

Thanks for your answer Doug. I totally agree, maybe “Follow the laws of the country you are creating artwork in” would be the first professional standard to follow.

 

[AlHam]

Doug,

Well put!

I doubt Al was asking about our behavior when we purport to be practitioners of photography to be considered “Fine Art”

u do feel, however, that many a model would gladly undress for a picture dealing with form and beauty as opposed to been plastered in men’s magazines.

I do expected all to follow standards of respect for our collaborators.

We also have to followethics in disclosure: how many copies, is this a silver gelatin true photograph or a digital image printed with a jet spray of pigments and so forth. These characteristics also relate to expected longevity under certain curated museum or collectors conditions.

So these are real standards of honesty and disclosure that are clear and mutually expected and understood!

Asher

Hi Asher, thanks for the replies, there was an element of questions what behaviours professional fine art photographers should exhibit. But then a lot of behaviours i have explored, such as what Doug has spoken about, i see as behaviours that ALL photographers should follow.

Your mention of numbered copies got me thinking though. I’d never really thought about the issues around that. One question that has popped up in my head is, what happens to the original digital file? I.e. I create a limited printing of 20 copies but still have the file from which more can be made. Should I now destroy the original file leaving only the printed work? Do I now have a duty to keep that copy more secure than I would my other images to avoid theft?

 

[AlHam]

Which came first: the category, title or subset of Fine Art Photography or the characteristics common to some photographs that appeared similar and a desire formulated to group them under a single heading?

Since FAP is a subset of photography I can assume it contains the same characteristics of all photographs. This would include means of production, a communicative element, a symbolic nature since no photograph is the thing being photographs, an interpretive presence and a commercial application. I might have missed a few things but by this time you might have got my drift.

Thanks for the comprehensive replies, you've raised some different questions for me so i'll ask them in different replies.

In my opinion the classification of fine art came first well before the invention of photography and included painting, sculpture, pottery and architecture amongst others. Photography started fighting for its place within these arts first by emulating the look and subject matter in paintings with the Pictoralism movement but then as an artistic medium in its own right.

What is your definition of the characteristic of a "commercial application"? Are you meaning it has a cash value or some other commercial application such as advertising?

 

[AlHam]

I see and share some of your contempt for "fine art photographers" and therefore fine art photography world. I see a general contempt as a good thing as this is what challenges and changes the art world. Indeed, a contempt for the historic art norms is what thrust us out of the modernist era into the current contemporary/post-modernist era.

3. Make the photo big, monochromatic and with a Matt finish.

Arguably the size of prints increased with better printing processes and to rival that of the size of paintings. Size, colour and finishes can create different emotions in the viewer so i see this as just another tool in the artists arsenal not necessarily a path to success.

4. Limited edition printing. But like pieces of the cross, there may be more distributed than anyone could reasonably count.

I see limited edition printing as the necessary evil for a fine art photographer to make money. Without the monetisation of art the diversity of art and artists would suffer.

6. Nudes are good subject matter as long as it’s not a male. That may change in the near future what with LGBTQ and the progressive women’s movement.

I agree with your contempt (i'm assessing) for the current prevalence of female nudes and the "fine art" tagline and equally the current notions of beauty. I see a number of fine art workshops that use nude female models and i don't need to tell you the demographic makeup of the photographers shown attending those workshops!!
Do you think that an expectation for professional fine art photographers/photographers should be to constantly challenge the norms and avoid cliches and stereotypes?

 

[AlHam]

You might be more comfortable with thinking of “Fine Art Photography” as examples of photography which are saved for posterity and prized by museums around the world and whose worth to the community increases over time.

Asher

I see this as the pinnacle of fine art photography those stand out images that last. This interpretation however does make it challenging to develop an understanding of new and contemporary fine art photographers.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I see this as the pinnacle of fine art photography those stand out images that last. This interpretation however does make it challenging to develop an understanding of new and contemporary fine art photographers.

Exactly, Al, as we have to somehow figure out how to navigate between the fashionable, popular and those with brilliant technique or else some durable quality of expression.

In all this, we need to still preserve landmark improvements in approach and use of photography even when they are not valued for meaning and transcendence.

Likewise pictures that lack technical prowess, but are uniquely powerful expressions of passion and thought shouldn’t and hopefully won’t be passed over by the most visionary collectors and museums.

In this imperfect dynamic of natural selection, museums can get stuck in bias due to connections with big collectors, corrupt relationships and public clamor for the fashion of the period!

So we have to rely on each other to help to save pictures we think have unusual worth.

Asher

 

[Tom dinning]

In my own not so humble manner I am just the antagonist who see the need for each of us to be challenged about our beliefs, expectations, demands, rules and standards.

This is where the changes are brought about and new ideas are clarified and have possible acceptance in the broader context.

It is not sufficient for an individual to decide on a path of change if their point of view is the only one they can see.

With fine art photography there are many trends surfacing and many lose ideas and ideologies being expressed, both in imagery and words. So much so that someone forgot to inform the general public what it is they are doing. And to some extent, the fine art fraternity didn’t hold a council meeting to decide their own aims and objectives.

The general public isn’t stupid. They are the ones that view the images on mass in galleries and the like. They spend their hard earned cash away from the art world but still buy a copy from a market to remind them of what they like.

Like any art form, there is often an elitist group that firm up the criteria for their own interests. Of course a photographer will legitimise their interest in photographing the female form will push their own barrow, as will a landscape, abstract or nature photographer. Photographers need to eat also. They will do what sells as part of their repertoire.

Like many people here at OPF we are not necessarily specific in regard to identifying ourselves as a type of photographer. We are, possibly, members of the general public. For us to discuss such issues is important for our own understanding.

What I see as groundwork for understanding is to recognise the photograph for what it is first and foremost: ink on paper produced by what we recognise as the photographic process (or any combination there of). From there on in its subjective as to which subset it might belong to. Often is the case that any image will comply or o many genres; or none. That’s where I find myself: not fitting to any specific group. Just a bloke interested in photographs and what they do for us.

So, maybe we don’t need another genre. If we had some criteria that fitted such a thing as a good photograph and a good photographer we wouldn’t need all the other stuff.

 

[Tom dinning]

Thanks for the comprehensive replies, you've raised some different questions for me so i'll ask them in different replies.


What is your definition of the characteristic of a "commercial application"? Are you meaning it has a cash value or some other commercial application such as advertising?

If there’s an exchange of money or kind for goods and services rendered. Simple. “ Here’s a photo. Now give me something for it”.

 

[Wolfgang Plattner]

Hi,
... there are some standards in Fine Art Printing, but I never heard about such in relation to photography. And even those for printing are not “professional”, they are just guidelines for arguing.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Actually, it’s a simple practical matter. Fine art that is bought an collected will be evaluated according to how it will be used, shown, stored and traded.

To go on my wall, it must be that it would last 10-30 years and not make a mess.

For a serious collector, it would have to be unique and durable enough to last enough to be able to sell or trade.

For a museum, it would havecto fit into their short term or long term plans for the type of collection. So styles, ranking in public and scholarly opinion, workmanship, fragility, maintenance issues become standards.

Each set of standards are merely filtration criteria to allow that work of art to be “consumed”, “used”, “enjoyed“ or merely stored by some person or organization.

Buying fine art might be considered akin to choosing an actor for a part in a performance. The director and producer have definite opinions and they work to select the candidate that has the most promise and qualities and least risk for that part!

Asher

 

[AlHam]

If there’s an exchange of money or kind for goods and services rendered. Simple. “ Here’s a photo. Now give me something for it”.

Ok i see your meaning. However, this is where my line gets blurry for fine art photographers. As it's my opinion that if i'm being commissioned for a "service" i am really at the behest of the client and therefore my "vision" for the artwork being created must be in line with the clients wishes and also comes with lots more professional standards to uphold (contracts, description of services, longevity of the artwork). Selling my art work as goods after it has been created has no bearing on my artistic vision and no standards to uphold before the sale (obviously there is work that is popular and work that is not therefore that could be argued as compromising my artistic vision, see Peter Lik and tune he dances to)
So in the short version if I'm creating for commercial means then it fall out of the fine art category as its being created for some other purpose not just for aesthetics or exploration. Does that make sense?

 

[Tom dinning]

Ok i see your meaning. However, this is where my line gets blurry for fine art photographers. As it's my opinion that if i'm being commissioned for a "service" i am really at the behest of the client and therefore my "vision" for the artwork being created must be in line with the clients wishes and also comes with lots more professional standards to uphold (contracts, description of services, longevity of the artwork). Selling my art work as goods after it has been created has no bearing on my artistic vision and no standards to uphold before the sale (obviously there is work that is popular and work that is not therefore that could be argued as compromising my artistic vision, see Peter Lik and tune he dances to)
So in the short version if I'm creating for commercial means then it fall out of the fine art category as its being created for some other purpose not just for aesthetics or exploration. Does that make sense?

It makes sense but it doesn’t need to apply.

In the purist form, the art, fine or otherwise, is an expression of the artist. That’s a very romantic view but in any context it’s unrealistic. There will always be an element of agreement between the artist and the buyer, if there is one. I’d there is not a buyer the art work only exists for one person: the artist. Even the act of giving away the art is a form of consent, an agreement as it were. “Here is my art (expression). It’s yours.” If the answer is yes, the ‘buyer’ now has the art at his disposal. If the answer is no, the art remains in the confines of its create and is no value to any other person. In a sense, it doesn’t exist beyond the artists experience.

If this is the case, by what standards does the art exist? Only the artist’s. and that could be anything at all.
Like the falling tree in the forest with no one around to hear it fall, does the art that is never seen have any value?
Of cause it does. But it doesn’t need standards to determine that, beyond those imposed by the artist.

If there is an expectation from the public that the art needs standards by which to comply then is loses its true value as an expression and is no longer solely the expression of the artist.

But, as I’ve said before; artists must eat, be sated in other ways such as fame and recognition, endeavour to get their message across, consume their own energy of creation, whatever. To do that they might need to sacrifice the romance and consume some commerce.

The realities of living are a burden we all bare. We chose, we compromise, we suffer.

 

[Unnamed Photographer]

In fine art photography, there may not be strict professional standards as in other genres. However, there are general principles that some photographers adhere to, including technical excellence, conceptual cohesion, presentation and print quality, and ethical practices. These can guide and inform the practice of fine art photography.