Is photography considered to be fine arts?

Answer 1

There are 2 words that clearly describe what it means. That Photographic tools play a large part in the creation of works of fine art.

The adjective I think is Fine-art, one word and this has an understanding in the artistic and commercial world. This nomenclature is restricted to certain forms of works of art such as painting, sculpture, printmaking, theatre and architecture.

Notice how Photography is not fine-art just by itself, but shows up when we actually produce prints. It is the actual output or visual art that becomes the fine art.

I am not sure that displaying on an LCD screen would be considered fine art unless we specific the specific display to be used and have calibrated the quality output.

Fine art is also being used to describe a level of quality and sophistication about one's work. This is more of a marketing tool as there are no standards that apply to this term.

For my own works both photography based and painting it is about creating visual presentations that will evoke emotive responses with a audience. Not that every person has to feel the same thing, but that the images I have destined to be fine art hopefully will convey a unique experience from viewing my works of art.

With fine art photography I have no problem combing other image elements or vector work, or other digital media into my art work, provided that each element was whole created by me and my tools. I will never use pieces of other photography that were not taken by me.

I will also wholly control the output process. If am not the printmaker then I have final say on output quality and if it doesn't meet my standards thenit will never be released as a piece of art work.