Abstract Photography Forum is Launched!

<p>Here we go! </p>

<p>Thanks, Glenn.</p>

<p>This thread properly may belong in the Philosophy of Photography forum, but here goes anyway.</p>

<p>Are there any objective criteria that apply to the evaluation of abstract photographs? </p>

 

<i>Are there any objective criteria that apply to the evaluation of abstract photographs</i>

<p>

many(as in the case with normal photos). the number of regular polygons visible in the photo, for example. but do we

really want objective criteria?

<p>Michael, I don't think there are ever static objective criteria by which to understand or evaluate photos. I would also tend to de-emphasize evaluation to the extent it has to do with judging or rating. What I would do is start with a reasonably applicable working description of "abstract photography" and try to garner how a photo may relate to that understanding and may even expand that understanding, and go from there.</p>

<p>Here are two descriptions of abstract art which have subtle differences. I'd probably go more with the first than the second. My caveat here is that art and photography are best not dealt with through definitions but instead through both theoretical and practical applications and discussion (not always suited for Internet forums)! That would be consistent with my reluctance to talk about objective criteria but instead take a more holistic and evolving approach.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Abstract art uses a visual language of shape, form, color and line to create a composition which may exist with a degree of independence from visual references in the world.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Abstract art is art that does not attempt to represent an accurate depiction of a visual reality but instead use shapes, colours, forms and gestural marks to achieve its effect.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I like the first description because I like the phrase "degree of independence from visual references in the world". How and why a photo asserts its independence from real-world visual references, I think, can give great insight into what abstraction is and how it's working in a given photo.</p>

<p>I surely agree that there are no objective definitions of abstraction. The term itself tells, that it is an abstraction of something, and mostly it is used as an abstraction from the visual world around us. <br /> I would however suggest, that instead of trying to agree on academic definitions, let's share photos,that each of us consider to be an abstract photo. That might be a way of coming to grips with the subject of this forum. <br /> Here is one, just for a start, which plays on large space of colors and textures, with a small teaser.<br>

It might be relevant to mention, that it is a printwork with the dimension of 150/100 cm.</p><div></div>

<p>Fred, thanks for your post, which I have read thoroughly. I probably should have stated the OP with greater detail. I started doing so, but I felt it was so convoluted that I trashed it and opted for the simple question I posed. </p>

<p>In response, for openers, I never mentioned static objective criteria; I mentioned objective criteria, period. What I think I had in mind was the use of concepts often applied to landscape work, street work, portraiture, etc. Examples: composition, perspective, degree of sharpness, color balance, leading lines, etc. I suspect that an observer may look at an abstract image and think that the composition is off the mark, or that there is too much red and not enough blue, or that the image is oversharpened. Here's where Anders' example comes into play. Thanks a bunch Anders, for this.</p>

<p>If one has a preference for blue tones exclusively and lots of texture, along with a "teaser" that may add interest, one may view the the example favorably. And, in this connection, I must clarify my use of "evaluate." I agree that we should not be using the term in the sense of judging or rating. We should be using it, in my opinion, from a perspective of preference or value. (I couldn't help but think of the old fact-value distinction with which JL Austin wanted to play Old Harry.)</p>

<p>As to the two definitions you supply, I also prefer the first. I think I've stated elsewhere a while ago that there are degrees of abstrac<img src="/photo/18290677" alt="" />tions, depending on the extent to which the subject(s) defies (defy) usual and customary methods of identifying it (them). Here's some<img src="/photo/18299643" alt="" /><img src="/photo/18297352" alt="" /><img src="/photo/18295692" alt="" /> examples. <img src="/photo/18297605" alt="" /></p>

<p>Sorry, this was the first time I tried to insert examples. Right click on each "?" to view each image in a separate tab.</p>

<p>Anders, I took your suggestion. Hopefully the examples I posted above will assist in this discussion.</p>

<p>Nope, Michael, your example is not there. Try again.</p>

<p>Michael, I used "static" in the sense that something static is thought of as showing little change. Your examples of the criteria you'd use (composition, perspective, degree of sharpness, color balance, leading lines) are static in that they have endured as artistic notions for centuries. Using these criteria is a different way of looking at art from, say, the perspective of emotion or passion. It is a more technical and constructivist approach to art, IMO, to consider the criteria you've mentioned and, in that sense, more static as well, since I see emotion and passion as more moving.<br /> <br /> In the photo below, which I don't consider an abstract photo <em>per se</em>, I was moved by the abstract elements such as the play of shapes at lower left. Though it is obviously a real-world element the camera saw, the way it photographed kind of released it from that literal visual reference. I've always enjoyed work that is representative but uses abstract elements to add to the literal nature of things. I think ALL photos have abstraction at play, even the most literal and documentary. It's often where the expressiveness comes in. <br /> <br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18102742-md.jpg" alt="" width="518" height="680" /></p>

<p>No. 432</p><div></div>

<p>Fred, I think your example constitutes ample proof that there are, or can be, different levels of abstraction. It also shows that an image can include both abstract and more representational elements simultaneously. The example's abstract elements are what you enumerated. The rest of the frame includes elements that clearly enable a viewer to identify them.</p>

<p>Anders, I will have to think about a possible alternate fix to the problem. In the interim, I will post 2 images, which differ significantly from each other in terms of style and levels of abstraction.</p><div></div>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I think this can be interesting.<br /> Yes surely, one can have photos with just abstract elements, which, to various degrees, show what all recognize as images of reality (ref Fred's example). <br /> Bela's example is for me a clearly abstract photo according to all possible definitions as far as I see it and the same goes for Michaels first example. He second shot is more complex, as it shows elements of of abstract very real sculpture, walls, curtain, furniture but introduce a reference to abstraction in the lower part. It is a type of abstraction, that I personally am attracted to.<br /> My example above (the blue space) is, as I see it, a borderline abstraction as it is a straight photography of the North Atlantic sea with a genuine puffin. Only by its limited color span and repetitive textures, as well as by its size (you "travel" into it) does t become abstract.</p>

<p>I'll try another borderline abstract, which works on blur below</p><div></div>

<p>And another of the same series.</p><div></div>

<p>I think of a definition of abstract photography like abstract art, being one that is not based upon figurative elements yet employs such elements as colour, form, texture, lines, points, masses and other elements in a composition of beauty (for which the latter may have different definitions).</p>

<p>Yet how do we avoid figurative elements in photography? As we are usually photographing some aspect of the world around us, it is very difficult to escape from figurative elements, something that is much less difficult for the artist painter or sculptor. All of the examples above are abstractions of more or less recognisable physical things (even Bela's example).</p>

<p>Perhaps successful abstract photography requires that the physical things photographed be completely removed from their recognisable state (again difficult) and of course contain a composition that inspires an appreciation of beauty of form and other elements of art that constitute it.</p>

<p>Perhaps <strong>"abstractions from perceived reality"</strong> rather than "abstract photography" might be closer to the truth than "abstract photography" that is to a great degree simply a contradiction in terms .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As we are usually photographing some aspect of the world around us, it is very difficult to escape from figurative elements, something that is much less difficult for the artist painter or sculptor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur, this is an important consideration and makes abstraction in photography as compelling as it is, IMO. <br>

<br>

I appreciate the term "abstract photography" precisely because of the potentially contradictory nature of the term. (Sometimes a contradiction or oxymoron can be very expressive, and getting the nuances of it—nuances you point out—can be enriching). "Abstractions from perceived reality" sounds too literal to me to be an effective moniker. In that sense, "abstractions from perceived reality" would almost seem to miss the point you're making about abstract photography, that it's a non-literal or non-figurative approach to literal real-world stuff. Why be so literal in describing something having so many non-literal aspects? "Abstract photography" suggests just the nuance (non-figurative approach to the literal) you're mentioning and the contradictions inherent in approaching photography that way. By spelling it out more academically and precisely, "abstractions from perceived reality" loses the succinct yet rich flavor of what we're talking about, </p>

<p>Arthur, my inclination is also, that abstraction in photography is mostly understood as images where no recognisable reality is present. My borderline "abstractions" are therefor not abstraction following such a definition. No-one , I think would suggest that Michael's first image is not an abstract image, as no recognizable reality can be found in it. The question one could pose is, whether it is photography.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, we have all seen in the No Word forum, when the theme is about "abstractions", a majority of the uploaded images represent details of a visible reality, where (only) the surrounded context is eliminated from the frame. Personally I see such images as the very first step towards abstraction in what can be described as a continuum of steps of deconstructions of the visible and recognizable reality. My two images just above are, as I see it, further steps towards abstraction.</p>

<p>That's why I called my images borderline abstractions because the reality is still recognizable, but they do not show the visible reality as such.</p>

<p>My first image, that of a a very blue sea is yet another type of "abstract photography" because, although it is straight photography, it might also, for the viewer, be something else and abstract. A visible experience of abstraction.</p>

<p>My point of view is, that in a forum like this one, on "Abstract Photography", we should not try to impose a too restrictive definition on what is relevant to discuss, but still it should be beyond reality as seen around us.</p>

<p>For the development and refining the human eyes, harmony for forms and colors is a long way in art. Most of the people never rich that point and it is an ultimate point in life appreciate, love, understand art, and finally abstract. Contrary to the general believe of people, creation of abstract image is not an easy task. Nature is full of abstract images and so, it is a best abstract artist. As a painter of myself, and lover of abstract I failed many time to paint, create a good abstract image. To be charged by other, if an abstract image is god is very difficult, because the majority of people don't have the talent the artistic feeling developed for abstract. Abstract can be very beautiful, — for some, and ugly-nothing for the rest of the 90 percent population, not like red setting sun pictures ( kitsch) hanging all over homes. Abstract art of any medium can have compositional elements of geometrical form or any natural substance, but, not as a major element of composition. Abstract art is very badly understand art form, from the average persons. All the above posted images are NON abstract, they are minimalist images, photographs of something, generally called here as abstraction. Which is not. In photography or even in other media as painting, graphic, sculpture , etc., can haw a recognizable human hand created element, but, as a secondary building block, subject of the whole abstract image. Most of the pure abstract do not have even those little elements, build up of harmonious forms shades and colors. The most frequently asked question of many people, standing in front of an abstract image, "what it is show", represent", etc. Wrong question. Like a cloud, do not represent a human imagined form of know something, it is the form, shade, colors by itself of the pure beauty.<br /> Please excuse my english.<br /> Abstract and abstraction is two entirely different thing.</p><div></div>

<p>I hope this qualifies as Abstract Photography. </p><div></div>

<p>Anders, in response to your query above, does it help for you to know that every abstract image I create is originally a nonabstract one? I decide when I start the process of manipulation how far from "recognisable reality" I want to go.</p>

<p>Michael, yes I imagined, that was the case. I have done the same, with more or les success, throughout years, starting from a photo of the real world. (you can find some of them in my folder <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1023217">Carrés d'images</a> ).</p>

<p>Bela, thanks for your elaborated comments with reference to your work as an abstract painter and sculpturists. As I do numerous of abstract acrylic paintings and sculptures in wood I know what you refer to. I understand your formulation</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Abstract and abstraction is two entirely different thing.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But don't think that when this forum is devoted to abstract photography, it would mainly, not exclusively, concern abstractions.</p>

<p>Bela, my understanding of abstract art is similar to what you describe. I always cringe a little when images, such as a toy cat on a wall unit or a blurry building, are labelled abstract.</p>