(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
I HAVE A THEORY, THAT I BELIEVE IS BORN OUT BY ACTUAL EVIDENCE, that it is nigh unto impossible to make a photograph, one that is considered to be fine art, of a subject that is considered to be one of conventional beauty.
If I had to assemble a body of work (of my pictures) wherein the subjects are considered to be representative of conventional beauty, I would have no trouble doing so. And, I am certain that that body of work would be well received in a camera club presentation and garner plenty of likes on social media sites. I can also write with the same degree of certainty that that body of work, or any picture therein, would never be considered for display in a fine art gallery.
The reason I believe the aforementioned to be true is relatively simple….the Fine Art World believes, iMo rightfully so, that a piece of art-please remember that we are considering photographic prints-in which the Content (meaning) is unambiguously obvious has little capacity for stimulating the intellect. In addition, such a picture incites little curiosity regarding why the picture maker made the photograph cuz, duh, the subject matter makes unambiguously obvious the answer to that question.
Whereas, most fine art art begs the questions, why did the maker create this object (please remember, a photographic print is an physical object in and of itself), and, what is the maker trying to tell me, the viewer?
The answer to those questions (and/or any number of other questions that might arise from the viewing of a photographic print) need not be akin to a PHD dissertation on art theory or the meaning of life. In fact, iMo, the answers are best when they are short and sweet, leaving the viewer to fill in any of the blanks. That’s cuz photography is a visual medium and in many cases too many words spoil the broth.
In any event, all of the above written, whatever the answers, the important thing is that the questions are asked and curiosity is aroused.