This topic was archived on Thu, 14 Nov 2019 20:19:00 +0000

Archived because: Solved

I’m disappointed

Abuse of the "Fine Art" subcategories

The People => Fine Art subcategory and any other Fine Art subcategories are definitely ones that need special pruning by staff. Standard portraits cannot be deemed "fine art" because the photographer decided to categorize it as such. Unless there is some sort of moderation of the submissions or a more well-defined set of criteria for what defines a fine-art image, this category will remain a mish-mash of miscategorized portraits of women, with occasional works with true artistic purpose buried somewhere in the middle. A great portion of these images don't even try to pretend to have some sort of thematic idea behind them - they are simply cookie-cutter portraits of a person, sometimes in a studio, sometimes in a field, sometimes in a wedding dress, but otherwise entirely generic. These belong in the Portraits subcategories.

Also, I feel like comparisons between fine art photography and other subcategories will be inherently skewed. The presentation of an individual in a senior portrait versus the fine-art presentation of an individual are going to be vastly different, and I can't see the grounds for making them comparable. A structural change to remedy this would be to separate all the fine art subcategories into one Fine Art primary category, and then subdivide by subject, e.g. Fine Art => People, Fine Art => Architecture, etc.; I think that this makes for a much more justified comparison. While subject matter will differ more vastly, I think that a big driving factor behind comparing fine art images is looking at the artistic intent, and so comparing the execution of that intent via the final artwork is a more accurate way of gauging quality.
1 person has
this problem
This topic is not open for comments or replies.