>>2950692You define art just from the social pov. This is valid but insufficient. It ignores the immanent and psychological aspects.
But even from the social aspect, you missed to outline the general function and need for art in a culture. Actually you just focused on the economic part, which - btw - gives one a feeling of you being a frustrated outsider.
Tho, I agree to the claims in your statement.
And as my suggestion: Next time do not use your definition where the question is "What is art?" but where it is "What is good/successful art?".
Furthermore OP's question was not what art is, but what differs art from fine art in photography.
>>2948032So, in regard to this and besides all the 'you have to make shittery fartsy to be fine artsy' opinions in this thread, I personally would distinguish fine art in a way where a photograph communicates some kind of a fine spirit. And with fine spirit I mean a certain kind of perspective the photographer's eye has on reality and the world in general.
I would compare it with fine humour, where a commedian can make the most ordinary jokes, but you can hear/read/see/assume the fine spirit of that person behind the surface and anticipate the deepness of his/her thoughts and feelings beyond.
In short: whichever >fine< art exists, it is about the content, not about the form. About what is in it, not about how it looks like.
