What is fine art photography? or to put it another way, when does fine art photography become fine art photography? Who decides what is and what is not fine art photography?
Jonathan Jones wrote recently in the Guardian newspaper: Photography is not an art. It is a technology. We have no excuse to ignore this obvious fact in the age of digital cameras when the most beguiling high-definition images and effects are available to millions. My iPad can take panoramic views that are gorgeous to look at. Does that make me an artist? No, it just makes my tablet one hell of a device. The news that landscape photographer Peter Lik has sold his picture Phantom for $6.5m (£4.1m), setting a new record for the most expensive photograph of all time, will be widely taken as proof to the contrary. In our world where money talks, the absurdly inflated price that has been paid by some fool for this “fine art photograph” will be hailed as proof that photography has arrived as art
Many share Jonathans scepticism regarding Peter Liks work and the prices they command, but he seriously undermines his argument with the pronouncement he can take world-class pictures on his iPad, which has to be one of the most idiotic statements ever made regarding photography
So with Peter Lik the photographer seems to be the one making the decision, his work is a work of art, so his work is a work of art, simply because he said so and the buyer agreed. Nice work if you can get it
The picture above is a good example of fine art photography. Why? Because I said so, and what I say goes. All that matters is I find someone willing to agree with me and pay a price that reflects the work's status as art, which, in this case, I would like to start the bidding at shall we say $100,000? Alternatively, you could buy an original limited edition fine art print or canvas right here for considerably less just be clicking on the picture above, but come on, where's the fun in that? Just put the check in the post and we'll say no more about it