On a winter’s day in 1984 “photography” and I met quite by accident, an encounter that redirected my life. For me, a photograph holds an undeniable sense of realism, a modern correlation that is easy to associate with. I see, I understand, I experience, I connect. I enjoy the conceptual transformation from reality to realism that a lens and camera offers. Although I have never been a dedicated painter I see and experience the world in this way. Life is my canvas and I often feel like a painter trapped in a photographer’s body where lens and light have become an expressive substitute for paint and brushes. In my work I intently concentrate on elemental form, rhythm and pattern allowing simplicity to engage visual impact. I believe that my steps have been guided along an inventive path by an awesome creator. I have never doubted my love for photography or my burning passion for art. It is something I could never stop. It’s what I do, it‘s what I love, it’s who I am.
Пікірлер
Made me feel a lot better about my stuff mate, appreciate this video! Responded to so many of my gnawing questions - not all of them self-made. Hero.
Do you consider all of your work fine art photography? Would using AI as a tool to create photography art I envisioned without even making an image with a camera be considered fine art photography .
Photographers, along with dentists, are the two professions never satisfied with what they do. Every dentist would like to be a doctor and inside every photographer is a painter trying to get out- Pablo Picaso
What a wonderful talk:) helped me ask myself some good questions, it is the beginning as you said at the end of the video, thanks.
You continue to inspire me, thank you!
Thank you so much Bob. I appreciate it.
Beautiful indeed!
Many thanks!
Love the work Martin
Thank you so much David, I appreciate it!
Thank you for the background video; and, pollock would be proud.
Thanks John, much appreciated!
Many thanks!
Thank-you for describing this so well I love how you explained emotional attachment to artwork 🖼️ and also what to do - wait on images. I enjoyed your stories both of the tree image and also the train track. Thank you for sharing.
My best photo in my opinion was taken back in 1969. It was of an abandoned hay raking machine, sitting in a field on a hillside. Up until that photo, everything else I'd taken were just "snapshots". This one was different. I felt the difference...other people commented on the difference. Seeing that print was the moment I realized what photography " could be". It changed everything for me. It put me on the path to where I am today as a photographer.
Thanks for the challenge. I just revisited and am surprised there are not more comments. I hope a lot of people joined the challenge! I did the challenge by myself (I did not join the community) and appreciated the chance to try and meet the brief. I enjoy the pics that resulted, and I consider M. Osner as an inspirational artist :)
cool, many tx! ✨👊🏻✨
Thank you Very encouraging
Much appreciated!
I really got motivated with the explanations and teachings… thank you 🙏
Thats great to hear, thank you!
Much appreciated!
Only a pleasure!
Just found this... I miss this live but enjoyed your replay :)
Did you have fun :)
Without doubt!
Ugh. I will never like this kind of photography. It's too close to kitsch and really does not tell anything more than "buy me for the living room".
Very inspiring.
Many thank Mariem, much appreicated!
Is fine art photography fact or fiction. It is a fact. I've seen it.
Photography lacks the directness of painting and drawing. A layer of technology (the camera) stands between the photographer and the image. This fact is reflected in the prices photographs fetch.
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
What an inciteful and enjoyable discussion! Thank you for sharing it with us.
Glad you enjoyed it Saeed!
“Precision is the enemy of creativity”. Last year, I read John Ruskin’s ‘On Art and Life’ and this was his central thesis. This single concept will free you as an artist of any kind, and indeed, as a human navigating life.
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
He is a very good storyteller and salesman. But to be honest, I am not sure if he is a very good photographer ...
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
Martin, I couldn’t agree more and it’s also my approach and my thinking. Well said.
Thanks John !
I enjoy the whole process of taking the photographs and editing. I have just started to learn to use shadows.
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!
If I only attempt to create “fine art” then I would miss most of the things happening about me which I enjoy to photograph. I find the happenings as a source of true enjoyment without thinking about creating fine art. Also occasionally those images become fine art in my mind. I do believe displayed fine art in public places are based on someone’s view and deep pockets for I have seen awful work displayed as fine art. In my opinion, it is the individual’s value of their work that really matters and if someone else likes it then that is nice but not necessary. 😊
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
This was a marvelous video! I thoroughly enjoyed it and I appreciate you for making this video. You have my subscription
Awesome, thank you!
Hello Martin. An interesting discourse. In the main I would say it is a good one! There are though a few things that caused me to frown. I hope you will be able to see why. You mentioned something along the lines of art being fiction - well it can be but not essentially so. It can be founded on reality. No less real than photography. I have been drawing and painting all of my life really. I particularly like realism. for that matter I detest the likes of Picasso. To me, his work looks like something he might have done on drugs. That is how it strikes me. That aside I don't think it is appropriate to use him in reference to photography today because things were different in his day. The equipment, the developing, etc. I don't think that can be left out. You mentioned the public deciding what is Fine Art. That made me frown the most. Money does not determine what is and is not Fine Art. If it did then that would place Fine Art strictly in the hands of the filthy rich. The Fine art in an art gallery can be enjoyed by the poor. Maybe a reasonably cheap book might be bought. Today, with the Internet that makes it easier still. Now, a painter can go out in to the country and set about painting a beautiful landscape. The painter can edit and make changes along the way to make a more pleasing picture. A more balanced picture even. A branch might be left out for example. The picture could look as if the tree might topple otherwise. If a person is in the picture they might have a branch growing out of an ear if the painter includes it. The photographer has no choice but to photograph what is there. So yes! There is case for the likes of Photoshop in more ways than one. Whatever the medium - be it photography, painting, drawing or whatever - one thing determines Art. That is the skill required to be able to do. The skill in photography will have differences to drawing and painting, but some things will be shared. Composition being one. Finally, trying to keep this short. Does Art Offend? Definitely! Among my Art books is one in which it is stated the Artist who does not offend will never do anything at all. That is because they will always be seeking to please everybody. However the Artist should not seek to offend. There is a stark difference there.
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.
Please you are an interesting photographer but definitely neither a good photo critic, nor a good photo historian, nor a philosopher or a theoretical instructor. There are numerous errors and confusions in your presentations on the topic and it is highly problematic for a potential audience looking for clarification.
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.
The ‘Britannia dictionary’. What is this? If it is meant to be the Encyclopedia, then its definition is far longer than that. As for Wikipedia anyone and everyone can modify the text, how can it be such a reference except for lazy students. And in fact most of the time this exposé is loose, confused and confusing bla bla. Beware! PS: before defining art photography for others why not 1-learn to spell ‘giclée’ on one’s own website 2-not simply use ‘archival ink-jet’ which is exactly what it is and what more people will understand. Again why be confused and confusing and pontificate about it??? What wasted time, time that would be better spent on your far more interesting photographic work (whether ‘art photography’, ‘’fine art photography’ or simply ‘photography’ (a term that encompasses both areas and far more by the way).
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 believe that photography is indeed art, I think the definition of “art” is of itself justifying photography as an art form. I think the gradual access to photography since its invention gave some of those that were immersed in other visual art forms like paintings to dismiss photography simply because anyone could take a photograph so to speak. I believe that many artists sketched scenes to later turn into paintings, say if JMW turner had an iPhone he’d surely have been tempted to capture a scene as a part of his process. I look at a picture by anyone and it affects me, that’s art I feel.
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.
A lot of people mistake minimalism for fine art photography, and it's easy to see why, but the confusion is even more complicated as fine art photography are simply defined as images created in line with the vision of the artist, and in our domain using photography as a medium for creative expression. The goal of fine art photography is to express an idea, a message, or an emotion but it then gets even more confusing as you can alter an image from anything to anything using anything you like to create it For example: filters, long or short exposures, artificial lighting, darkroom, computer, multiple images, distorted lenses, AI, paint, (as a Pro I used to retouch transparencies, in fact we all did). So with all that in mind everyone who ever takes a picture is essentially a fine art photographer - even minimalists!!
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
Well after listening until the end I’m not sure I could identify what “fine Art photography “ Really is, but enjoyed your talk, and hearing your ideas; Lots to think about, for sure.
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
What if its not binary? What if it can be both? Was Michelangelo acting as an artist, or a craftsman, or both when he painted the Sixtine Chapel? - Craft requires predictable and repeatable outcomes, art has the freedom to take risks, leave things to chance. - Craft is client driven, art is driven by the creator They don't exclude each other, hence it ends up in the eye of the beholder is more the one or the other, but it sure isn't binary.
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.
Beautiful ideas...
Thank you so much 😊
Volkswagen Karmann Ghia! Lovely picture.
Many thanks!
It can be difficult to understand for people that have not studied art and photography at an accredited university art school. So here goes. :) Photography is not an art. Photography is a medium. Paint is also a medium. Photography and paint being media can be used to produce art. Not all photography is art. Photography can be a record of an event. Which is not art. Forensic photography is definitely not fine art. There are many arts, Fine art being one of them, there's commercial art, advertising art. etc These are called ancillary arts because the purpose is to communicate an object or event for a utilitarian purpose, to sell a product etc. Fine art which is a mistranslation of "Pure Art" is art who's only purpose is to function and stand alone as a work of art. No other purpose. So photography, which is a medium can be used to produce fine art. This could be described as a fine art photograph. Fine art photographs and fine art in general does not have any particular look or appearance or medium. It can be color, black and white film, digital anything. Remember it is a mistranslation and misunderstanding of the term "pure art". It is fine art because of the creators intent and its purpose. Not because of it's appearance. Jeff Koons is a contemporary fine artist. He makes fine art using balloons. Balloons in and of themselves are not art.
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.
This is by far the best explanation on fine art photography I've heard.
Wow, thanks! Much appreciated!
Art is what people consider art. Idem dito fine art photographie.
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
Lol...
What did you find funny?
I respect your channel, what you are doing, more than any other photography-related channel on YT. I put down my cameras decades ago to make more money. When I came back to them, there was something...missing. Your videos reminded me of things I had forgotten (or misplaced). I made a comment that sounded combattive, and that was not my intent. "Art" is subjective. But there are some pieces (and some artists) that are clearly different from the rest. Better. Photography is too often treated as a technical discipline, and not art. But great painters spend their lives developing technique. They do studies, they go through "blue periods" or "white periods" They experiment and invent techniques like aquatint etching, etc. What I think gets lost is that painting itself is also a technical discipline. What I truly love about your videos is that you encourage photographers to go beyond the exposure triangle or the rule of thirds, or native ISO, or all the things things most photography channels are built on. I may not be able to define "fine art", and I may not achieve it even if I try. (Sturgeon's Law) But I know it is is the child of intention and effort. Your videos are always in inspiration towards both of those things.
Thank you so much for your message and kind words. It's great to hear that my discussions have resonated with you. Regards Martin
Fine art photography is bs b&w minimalist landscape with long exposure water lol no texture no creativity a filter applied to a document photography. They should stick to weddings
I'm intrigued by your strong stance against fine art photography. Could you share more about why you feel this way?
Lovelly! I have learned tons
You are more than welcome!
Be brave,,, Break the rules of photography !
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
Hi Martin.. I thought the Flatiron was beautiful, but this guy Leonard Missone is even more beautiful..LOL.. Absolutely outstanding. The 3rd photo of the many carts in the street.. How can that not be called art ??
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.
that Edward J Steichen photo is outstanding.. I want one ! Almost ahead of its time
Absolutely, that Edward J. Steichen photo is indeed outstanding! I would love to have a piece like that in my own collection too.
I was a wedding and portrait photographer for 25 years. In 2015 I became a fine art photographer, but today I just call myself an artist. I'm a painter as well, but it's my photography that is the mainstay of my artworks. You see the camera is just another tool like a paintbrush to me. I'm never recording what I see in the viewfinder instead I am envisioning my creativity within the frame pre and post production. My images are creations not recordings to see beyond the obvious, to put my own stamp on the scene I'm photographing that defines what a fine art photographer means to me. Seeing beyond the obvious towards a creative vision and a unique interpretation.
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.
So glad you incorporated Stieglitz into your talk. The struggle to get photography accepted as art is important historically and to show that this topic is far from new. I’ve reflected on this topic for 20+ years and still haven’t finished my thinking.
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.