Subject of Abstract Photographs

Hi, I'm new here. I agree with Ken Johnson and Randall. A large segment of the population has not learned how to read abstraction and how to judge and interpret art in general. People often fall down to the most basic question- what exactly did you shoot? That's only natural. Not many folks talk about specific aesthetic qualities of photos and I don't see many here asking about the photographer's intended purpose, for a given photo. I sort of wish there were more photographers who appreciate those artists who made a name for themselves by creating abstract art. (or any of the 'isms) When reading an abstract photo, ask yourself if there is a center of interest, determine where your eye travels when looking it over, and for how long does it hold your interest or engage your emotions. Often photos are labelled incorrectly as being 'abstract' simply because the photo has strong abstract qualities- powerful lines, shapes or colors.

As someone already mentioned, 'abstract' usually means 'non-representational'. One of the problems with interpreting a photo, is that when we 'identify' the object, we often summarize it and place it in a neat little box(label) in our brain, and discontinue exploring it. Another problem with abstraction is that some photographers fall into those 'cliche' images of abstraction based on images they've been exposed to over the years, via popular media. And it ain't DeKooning.

<i>"Found art is closer to accident, and therefore it does not transcend nature because there is no human being interpreting the original object." </i><p>

 

<i>All photographers interpret a scene using common techniques. Otherwise there is no point to most photography. The most obvious technique here is the removal of elements that indicate scale, time, place, depth, etc. </i><p>

 

By <u>found art</u> I presumed you meant things like photographic accidents such as pictures of the photographer's feet, mangled film, and possibly (but unlikely) Ready-Mades.<p>

 

I disagree that all photographers interpret. The odds are that most work largely on automatic, unthinking.

The abstract vs. representational discussion is one that covers many art forms. At a recent lecture on abstract art I attended, the speaker ended by putting up slides of "The Gates" in Cental Park from a year ago. We talked at length about that art project and if it was abstract or representational. There are good arguments on both fronts. I pointed out that I photographed them in both color and B&W, the latter, and the way I photographed them, making them further abstract.

 

At my recent gallery show I had the following artist's statement giving some insite into why I made the images I showed:

 

"These photographs represent my view of part of our world. As I walked around I saw each of these collections of objects, light and shadow jump out at me. As I explored them with the camera and in the darkroom they became clearer in my mind. Each is a ﾓstraightﾔ photograph in that they are sharp focused and printed on glossy paper and manipulated only using the usual printing controls. Although ﾓstraightﾔ there is much abstraction in these compositions. Often it is difficult to determine exactly what the viewer is seeing. This is intended, they are all real views of real things."

"At a recent lecture on abstract art I attended, the speaker ended by putting up slides of "The Gates" in Cental Park from a year ago. We talked at length about that art project and if it was abstract or representational. There are good arguments on both fronts."

 

If the slides are like virtually all the others I've see, then they're representational images of someone else's (Cristo's) abstract concept. I can't imagine how the photographer gets credit for capturing an abstract photograph, and have to assume that the lecturer takes only representational images, like most people.

 

Pico, the opposite of "found" is "created", meaning distortion of a photograph through some form of manipulation (although most manipulations do not create abstracts.)

 

I have saved a few "accidental" shots. They are the only thoughtless photographs I've ever taken. (Same for you and anyone else.) Earthshaking, rarely, but thoughtless?? Please.

I have not been to recent lectures where someone tells me how I might be thinking when I am using my camera; mostly for my own enjoyment. <P>

<i>

 

I disagree that all photographers interpret. The odds are that most work largely on automatic, unthinking.</i> -- Pico.</p><p>

 

There are different parts of our brains that are engaged in our thinking processes. 'unthinking' is not one of them. Perhaps what might be closer to the 'unthinking' might be a more relaxed, introspective view of what the light is doing to our view of the subject or objects we see, perhaps in unusual circumstances. That is; our preception of what light is doing with the subject of the photo, and what we can get our cameras to show of our preception is the essence of abstracts.</p>

<i>There are different parts of our brains that are engaged in our thinking processes. 'unthinking' is not one of them.</i><p>

 

Parts of our brain are not available to language or introspection.<p>

 

When a person is confronted with something that does not fit his well established preconceptions he is likely to ignore it or overlook it. It's not the same as cognitive dissonance; it is unthinking, or not thinking.<p>

So if a photographer thinks in an abstract way, he is not relying on the database of visual memory and theory he learned....maybe. Perhaps that's why abstract images come automatically as you draw or shoot them, just fragments of an untested idea, perhaps. Curious then that people ask what the idea represents, comparing their own ideas of the image to the unthinking moment which made the image.

 

Cheers.

"Curious then that people ask what the idea represents, comparing their own ideas of the image to the unthinking moment which made the image."

 

Maybe the answer is to not answer the question and let the viewer wallow in their insecurities.

an Abstraction is something that is simplified...something that is reproduced, or repeated, something that might be stretched or compressed, something that might be blown apart or seen as fragments- it is a simplification and yet, it is not. An abstraction may have "essence" or it may evoke (atleast the "true" abstracts claim to do) or it may provoke.... and sometimes, Abstraction is subjective too. for what might appear to be simple and pristine to one might be far too detailed and symbolic to another.

 

My personal opinion is that abstraction, as a term..as a movement began with the advent of modernists- the painters, sculptors who began looking at things simply from another point of view- sometimes, there was no point of view at all. Architecture was a social medium that took the ideals further, for the better or for the worst.

However, if one tends to apply the meaning of abstraction, then the best and ample example to look at would be nature. There are dimensions that our senses haven't unlocked yet and these occur in nature.

Abstraction comes with human being's constant endeveour to look at the "larger picture"....a balance of "reality" and "abstraction" are necessary for the survival of our race, a search or a quest for the unknown....

I used to avoid "abstract" photography as not really photography. But recently I have become involved with fire spinning and taking pictures of people spinning fire. Quite often the person disappears and all i have in my photo is the spinning fire, or the spinning glow sticks.

 

I know dictionaries and such now define "abstract" as some special kind of school of art, but to me it seems obvious from the name that what is being done is pulling out one or more parts (abstracting) from something else.

 

As I play with this, I find some really pleasing images that need no explanation to someone who enjoys patterns. http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/43661081

and

<object width="450" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://backend.deviantart.com/embed/view.swf"></param><param name="flashvars" value="id=44013234" /><embed src="http://backend.deviantart.com/embed/view.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" flashvars="id=44013234" height="360"></embed></object><br /><a href="http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/44013234/">Visitors Approach</a> by *<a class="u" href="http://redwoodtwig.deviantart.com/">redwoodtwig</a> on <a href="http://www.deviantart.com">deviant</a><a href="http://www.deviantart.com">ART</a>

 

These are unmanipulated images, other than a bit of exposure tweaking. I see that my camera details are not present, but I usually leave the EXIF in the file and let it be displayed along with the image for those who are curious.

 

I don't think abstract has to represent anything, but by the same token I don't think there is any reason not to explain what it is an abstraction of. These are both direct photographs of a person spinning various colored lights at night. I've used the medium of photography to abstract the beauty of spinning lights from the beauty of watching a spinning light dance.

 

some of the examples in this thread I find great examples of abstracting one particular aspect from reality and displaying it. When it's fairly obvious what it came from, what it is abstracted from, I enjoy it more than your first example, where I have no idea what it is other than a regular pattern.

 

Photography always abstracts only a part of what the camera is pointed at. Film may be able to capture a much larger dynamic range than current digital, but even film is nothing compared to the human eye.

 

So, as photographers, we are always doing abstract art in some sense. Just how abstract depends on the photographer. I can fully understand why nearly everyone wants to know what it is an abstraction of. The answer gives them a better understanding of the work of art as a human creation. I think to say, "oh, just look at the beautiful pattern, that's the art!" is not helpful. There is more than the pattern, there is the artist and the pattern. With a camera, there is the artist and the subject and the pattern.

 

-- Brandon Smith<div></div>

My apologies for cluttering up my response with embed code that was not appropriate to use, :-(