The Fine Art Question...

...or the other kind of F.A.Q., hasn't popped up for me, at least not as much as might be expected. Curious, considering that CameraArts is, above all other things, a fine art photography magazine. This past weekend, though, on a photographic expedition in Northwestern New Mexico—the land of the Navajo and the Bisti Badlands—my guide wanted my opinion. What makes a photograph "fine art?"

It wasn't posed as a serious philosophical or aesthetic quandary, just as a passing topic of conversation. I have to admit I treated it as such, taking the fifth with "well, it's all relative," and "it's in the eye of the beholder." And in a way, it is. Technical quality, use of color, mastery of composition—these all seem like natural components of the "fine art photograph." Who is to say, however, that a Polaroid or family picture can't transcend? In this postmodern paradigm, it no longer matters if anyone disagrees. The definition of art itself has become elusive, and framing it more difficult than ever.

Of course, in any serious discussion of art, the terms "truth" and "beauty" pop up frequently, both of which are just as abstract. Plato would say that the two are one in the same, but it's likely that even he could have appreciated the merit of Nick Ut's horrific Vietnam images. The late Robert Heinecken (CameraArts July/August 2006), to name another from an endless list of examples, was known (among other things) for the juxtapositon of mainstream beauty with the terrible or the grotesque. One serves as war documentary, the other as social commentary, both are attempting to convey truth. The biggest difference today, it seems, is that art can be ugly.

CameraArts draws its material from a wide variety of photographers, methods, and subjects. We seek images that are inspiring to many, but we leave it up to the individual to decide if any of it is art. The photographer's intention or chosen genre almost becomes irrelevent when there is only the image on the page to consider.