I'm just kind of curious. Does this make the cut or is it paintings only?

Fine Art is when they paint the female of the species with no clothes on. If that trout is a female, then it qualifies.

And Ray nails it!

It's fine art if a non-government entity pays more than $1000 for it.

Nothing bought with government money is art.

Actually, I think that I phrased that very poorly.

Anytime that someone spends an amount of money meaningful to them to acquire something they find beautiful, it's "fine" art.

quote:

Originally posted by analog_peninsula:
Actually, I think that I phrased that very poorly.

Anytime that someone spends an amount of money meaningful to them to acquire something they find beautiful, it's "fine" art.

Fine by me.

Grizz

quote:

Originally posted by Beartrack:
I'm just kind of curious. Does this make the cut or is it paintings only?

Good stuff.

I'd say no, pretty crude all around and shows little creativity.

Grizz

I've always considered art "fine art" when it walks that fine line between being utter shit and revelatory. As far as the trout... as a previous poster said, if it's a girl trout then I'm all in.

Fine art is whatever you say it is. But to sell it, you only need someone else that see's it as fine art.

I take quite a few photo't during the year, I don't consider any of them fine art. On the other hand most the people on photography forum's think that everything they do is fine art. Only problem is they also think it can't be fine art unless you've edited it in some way.

Fine art? Just depend's on who you ask!

If you can't see the numbers thru the paint your half way there..

I was stationed in Spain about 15 years ago when I was still on active duty. One of the girls that worked for me had a sister that was completely cut from a different mold. You could barely tell they were related.

The military girl let her sister live with her during the college off season. Her sister was studying art, in hopes of working for Sothebys or another auction house as an appraiser. The girl was trying to work in "fine art". In her mind it just meant more money.

To me taking photos is a talent, and it takes a certain eye. I don't mind photos hanging on the wall, especially done in a printed canvas forum, or especially a the printed sheet metal ones. I don't consider any photograph from blond bimbos big boobs to Ansel Adams Grand Tetons to be fine art. But I like it.

Engraving with photographic detail I'd consider fine art. Especially if the rifle maker has the ability to finish the piece up to a level that an engraver can embellish.

I think sculpture and paintings are the same. If you are able to capture detail in a quality that would make Ansel Adams jealous, you are a good artist.

The more obscure it is the easier it is to do. I took art in High School for 4 years, I have continued painting as an adult and to be honest I still suck at it. I can't make my work look like photography, quite a few artist are able to do this, they are amazing artist.

Expressionism on the other hand goes against this mold. An expressionist piece will be about the artist feelings. Some expressionistic work has true talent, some of them just can't do realism and so they don't.

My old high school art teacher was a Vietnam era Navy helicopter crewman that mostly recovered dead soldiers. He was a funny guy. He used to say that it wasn't art if it didn't look like a photograph. I was kind of a C plus student.