sporeboy in delhi

photography as fine art

As part of the India Art Fair in Delhi at the moment, I attended a number of events last evening. One was the KHOJLive event, and there, amidst the clamouring crowds for the performing art pieces, I met J.

J is a Berlin-based PhD student researching on the function of art in the Indian society, and how that has changed since the opening up of the Indian economy (that is, when the current Congress party came to power with a coalition).

J, together with her Mumbai friend, and I had interesting conversations amidst the booze and buzz of the art world. We spoke of art vs craft, definition of art and more. Following our conversation, I wrote to J an email this morning:

Dear J,

Last evening you mentioned that the contemporary world may not have fully accepted photography as fine art.

You gave the example of the German tax system to illustrate this; 7% tax for photography and 19% tax for fine art.

Photography as Fine Art

I just enquired prices for a photography work by Elliott Erwitt from a Berlin-based gallery, Camera Works. They are charging me 19% on the photography work.

So I am wondering if they are wrong, or you are mistaken :)

It would be interesting if you were mistaken, and how that may change your perspective on photography as art.

You mentioned there are many who still regard photography as a documenting process. Personally, I think in the post-Enlightenment age, that is too shallow a view. Photography is only documentary IF the photographer decides to use it as so.

If the intent of the photographer is to express a concept that he has conceived for some time, I think that moves beyond “documenting”.

Of course, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion.

Yet, I thought I just needed to share my thoughts on the “documenting” point.

From wikipedia (not the best source I know), it defines fine art as:

“Fine art or the fine arts encompass art forms developed primarily for aesthetics and/or concept rather than practical application.”

Based on this definition, I think photography can, but not always necessary, be a fine art.

Historically-entrenched Definitions

Do you think will there ever be a day we stop using the system of the Judaeo-Christian calendar?

Where Sunday is a day of rest because the Bible said so? 

This calendar is used only because it is historically entrenched, and not because of any natural phenomenon (like say the lunar calendar which follows moon cycles).

Similarly, perhaps the fine arts is so historically entrenched that today one cannot perceive photography next to say sculture.

But if the definition of fine arts is historically defined, then there is a chance that photography will become part of the fine arts in the future;

Today is tomorrow’s history.

I do hope you we can find the time to carry on this discussion, and many more.

See you soon!

Warmest Rgds,

nicfoo

1. nidhis liked this
2. sporeboyindelhi posted this

1 note | Posted Jan 28, 12