Frankly, it seems to me that there are some of the unsual assumptions
here about what exactly constitutes "fine art" photography (as a
category - quality evaluations aside). Whose idea of "fine" art? As
opposed to what other kind of art? (This kind of bugs me in the same
way all those articles and workshops about "Mastering the Fine Print"
used to bug me. "Fine Print" seemed to be code for "like Ansel Adams or
John Sexton or Howard Bond" or whomever, with the annoying presumption
that anything else was therefore less than "Fine.") To respond to
something Tom C asked in another message, no, I don't believe that the
subjectivity of a majority = objectivity of a sort.
- Marco
On Aug 8, 2005, at 3:42 PM, Bob W wrote:
Would you agree that scraps of human interaction, caught as
"street scenes", shouldn't necessarily be held to the same
compositional standards as, let's say, fine art photography?
I wouldn't.
Disclaimer: that doesn't necessarily mean I think there actually is a
higher
standard of composition in so-called fine art photography. It's mostly
rubbish, like everything else.
--
Cheers,
Bob
