Fine Art Photography vs. "Contemplative Photography": What's the Difference?

The concept of "fine art photography" isn't as terribly radical a notion as it once might have been. Most art associations -- including the New Hampshire art Association -- accept photographers as juried members. Also, it's becoming less and less common for show organizers to state "absolutely no photography will be considered" on show prospectuses. Furthermore, buyers are finding that it can be affordable to purchase photography. (This "low cost of entry" also allows them to "test the waters" before deciding to become a serious collector of fine art photographic images.)

The "Articles" section of my web site contains numerous articles on fine art photography and becoming a fine art photographer. However, this is the first essay I've written which attempts to address "contemplative photography." While there is some degree of overlap between the two practices, not all fine art photographers practice contemplative photography. Similarly, not all practitioners of contemplative photography (or miksang, for that matter) are fine artists.

This image appears within the "Color" user gallery at seeingfresh.com

Contemplative photography is not measured by the standard criteria of what constitutes "fine art" (such as maturity of vision, color, composition, execution, consistency of work.) Rather, contemplative is distinguished by the intent of the photographer at blurring the dualities between photographer and subject, and between image and viewer. Most of the literature out there on contemplative photography focuses its attention on what the artist brings to the process of making the images. (I recoil at using the term "most of the literature out there." because up until a few years ago, it was difficult to find anything on the subject.) However, I break from the pack by believing the principles of contemplative photography don't end once the exposure is made: instead, I think that they apply equally to the acts of editing and curating images, as well as making later derivative works from the original shots.

Through traditional art, artists use various media to communicate their vision and response to the world around them. The artist's personal vision can range from outrage and advocacy through peace and serenity. However, there's always a "me" or "I' or "my" in the equation. Moreover, the viewer observes the artwork through the artist's eyes (even though certainly we all bring our own background and experiences to the action of perceiving.) Contemplative photography, on the other hand, is primarily a meditative practice, rather than an expression of self/ego.

In contemplative photography, the photographer works at directly experiencing reality without the "self" filter complicating matters. The resultant photo just happens to be an artifact of those efforts. (If the photo happens to help the viewer achieve a similar state, then so mach the better.) For this reason, comtemplative photographs are often distinguishable by their directness and immediacy.

So what happens when a fine arts photographer takes up the practice of contemplative photography? That differs for each person, but my experience has been that being an artist influences my subject choice and the way I compose pictures. But my meditative practice, once a potential subject has been identified and framed, is no different than that of a non-artist. I do think that I'm tougher on myself than are non-artist practitioners. I look at the resultant photos with an overly-critical eye and discard "successful" contemplative images simply because they don't meet the traditional standards of "art." While I try to convince myself that some of the most successful feng shui'ed rooms are pretty ugly, I still keep hitting the "delete" key.

_______________________________________________________________

Some of the contemplative images which passed my ruthless editing process can be found at the Gallery section of my web site and here:

Pin It