But this introduction has been a way to introduce another important question. Can the work of a photojournalist be considered fine art?
If art is subjective, then how does Fine Art get defined? I have never doubted that photojournalism is Fine Art, but at some point my thoughts clashed together and repeatedly mentioned the Fine Art was exclusive to an aesthetically pleasing, and in modernist terms, concept driven work. It was work that did not appear on weekly covers of magazines, but hung in museums across the world. To overcome, I looked at works by Sekaer, Evans, Lange, Greenfield, Eddie Adams, Stearns and many other photojournalists, attempting to single out what it was that made their work come together. What was it about photojournalism that was so unique, but at the same time shared the most fundamental quality of Fine Art work? It took some time, but I did find an answer in the introduction of Sekaer's work, and soon realized that it was present across the board of all other photojournalistic work, as well as Fine Art work. In looking at it, the viewer has a "respond" mechanism activated, they are engulfed emotionally. That is in fact what all fields of art have in common, the emotional response to their work.
Is photojournalism considered Fine Art? I say absolutely yes!