It's still alarming that the term ‘Fine Art photography’ continues to be a repository of anything not understood or perceived to be outside the comfort zone of existing, established genres or categories in the photography world. I beg the question “When is an image truly Fine Art?” Surely it cannot simply be a consumable studio portrait with the application of texture on a bland background where we are asked to accept it as ‘art’ solely based on its technique in image manipulation software? When does a landscape cease to be a landscape and become a Constable or a Turner but captured with a camera? It truly has become a minefield often of misinformation. 

Is it not a simple truth that the Renaissance artists only used natural light in the most exquisitely controlled ways. Doesn’t it make you wonder just how much knowledge has been lost in our modern day lives and perhaps why photographers have struggled to be accepted and acknowledged as artists? Have you ever wondered where the mystical and mythical forty five degree lighting angle theory and practice took its rise? Certainly not YouTube and the Internet!

Quo Vadis Domini?Quo Vadis Domini?

I relish discussions of this nature with family, friends and fellow artists. In one such recent discussion with my partner and co-creative poetess, she put forward the proposition that from her perceptions and experiences a piece of art should contain 'pharmaceutical elements' that constitute a perfect combination, resulting in a definitive outcome whose effects are clearly understood. Perhaps in essence, it could be explained as the complexity of the union of elements that are brought together in a work of art. For surely the most powerful art forms illicit emotional and intellectual responses. Food for thought don’t you think?

Martin Grahame-Dunn FBIPP ©2016