What do contemporary photographers call "abstract" ?

<p>What we call "abstract" should maybe especially depend on what photographers show as "abstract photography".</p>

<p>Maybe it is relevant, or maybe not, but I have always been fascinated about languages, their evolutions and the role of wise men.<br>

In France, we have a the French Academy (L'Académie française), an old institutions founded in the 17th century, which includes forty members, known as the "immortals". It publishes the official dictionary of the French language and is mostly known for its defense of the French as Molière wrote it (unjustified ! But has some elements of truth to it !)<br>

It define standards and underline and recall good usages of the French language </p>

<p>Contrary to this tradition, in Scandinavia, we have academies too, but their role is mainly to inform on <em>public contemporary use of the languages</em>: how words are spelled, what they mean, how they are pronounced - by those who speak and write it. </p>

<p>I would suggest that when we speak about art and photography, we listen to those who make it: the photographers who produce "abstract photography".<br>

Take <strong>Photonet</strong> as a start and go into the <a href="/photodb/random-photo">"Random Image Generator"</a>, under that category "abstract " for example. Or, go to the <a href="/photo-critique-forum/?category=Abstract&filtered_p=t">Critique Photo forum</a>, using the same filter, or <a href="/gallery/photocritique/filter">Browse top rated photos</a>. You can use other selections and criteria in Photonet searching for "abstracts", if you wish, but you obviously end up with a view on what Photonetters call "abstract photography". <br>

You can also go to other sites on internet and search for the same:<br>

Take "Artspan.com" for example, still with the filter "<a href="http://www.artspan.com/art-by-category/2--/Art-Photography.html">photography/abstract</a>", or <a href="https://www.absolutearts.com/cgi-bin/portfolio/art/get_art.cgi?an=90&category=Photography&theme=Abstract">Absolutearts.com</a>, or <a href="https://www.saatchiart.com/photography/abstract">Saatchiart.com</a> and you have a wide understanding of what photographers call "abstract".<br>

This might not be your own usage of the term abstract, which is maybe more limited, but it is what the term covers by the photographers in question.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>While I think looking at what contemporary photographers do is a very helpful suggestion, I'd add a word of caution on drawing too many conclusions from what's posted to the PN category "abstract." PN categories are too few. For instance, there is no "graphic" category. There is no "surrealism" category. There is no "design" category. There is no "geometric" category. I imagine some who post to "abstract" might very well choose another category if there were more available. </p>

<p>Mind you, I think many photos that would be put in these other categories can validly be considered abstract, but if we really want to know what contemporary photographers who consider their work abstract are doing, we'd have to know for sure that they consider their work abstract and aren't just choosing a category for lack of something else available. I'm by no means rejecting Anders's suggestion, just wanting to consider different angles.</p>

<p>I fully agree. It would be very useful to have all the categories you mention. I would however, according to my rather inclusive usage of the term abstract, mostly include especially "graphic", "geometric" and "design" as subcategories within abstract photography. <br>

When it comes to surrealist images they can of course also be abstract (like the one below).<br>

Some have considered most of Dali's or Picasso's paintings as surrealist abstract work. <br>

I thought of introducing Threads on each of these categories in this new forum in the future.</p><div></div>

<p>From what it appears contemporary photographers seem to define it by what it's not compared to other methods of seeing and creating photographic images.</p>

<p>The more specific the definition the more it just becomes all inclusive of other types of seeing and creating photographic images now limited by the interpretations set forth to define it by a small group of people, people who clearly see it different enough from other types of photography they have to create a category for it.</p>

<p>For example I didn't want pictures of people's feet to be considered Abstract Photography until someone provided a link to an well known Abstract Photographer's online gallery showing a foot shot vertically in B&W. I could tell it was a foot back lit, posed and shot low angle to make it appear bigger than life. I give up.</p>

<p>I just tried out PN's Random Image Generator set to Abstracts. One of the images that came up was a silhouette of a foot. CRAP!</p>

<p>But I have to say there are SO MANY really good and of varying styles of Abstract photos that I'm now wondering why we need a forum category for it. I don't see any of those photographer's names posting here and I don't see any of our names and photos show up in the PN RIG.</p>

<p>"I don't see any of our names and photos show up"<br>

Might be linked to the fact, that Photonet is build around rated photos. Many of us do not participate in rating since years. I, for example.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Might be linked to the fact, that Photonet is build around rated photos. Many of us do not participate in rating since years. I, for example.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, I think you're right, Anders. I spent some more time on the RIG last night using various category filters and saw several joke images humorously castigating those who give low ratings, one of which showed a man getting gored in the behind by a bull with crudely superimposed words to the effect.. "here's to those giving 1's, 2's & 3's ratings". That one was in the "Humor" category.</p>

<p>Also couldn't help note browsing the RIG is a bit trippy and disturbing as it's similar to browsing an individual's gallery to get an idea of how the photographer thinks only realizing it's of many photographer's different views on the world while at the same time feeling an overall since of sameness creeping in the more time passed seeing one after another over the top perfect looking image. Even the nudes seemed to all blend together.</p>

<p>Not a good way to appreciate photography in general IMO. Sensory overload.</p>

<p>Yes, Tim, don't overdo it. Like all excesses, it is bad for your health.</p>

<p>However, it happens to be the best way of getting a rapid appreciation of how Photonetters use the term "abstract".<br>

If you try to use filter on abstract, based on "tags", the selection is even more heterogeneous, but of course you have then photos, which photographers find have "abstract" qualities. Most photos could be said to include abstract qualities. This weeks "Photo of the Week", is an example.</p>

<p>How a the predominance of a photo's abstract qualities makes a photo into an "abstract photo", is maybe the center of our concern here.</p>

<h1>What do contemporary photographers call "abstract" ?</h1>

<p>I have to post this link just to show how far we've gotten with PN contemporary photographers in expressing this genre.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/no-words-forum/00eDNc</p>

<p>Anders, I suspect your OP is similar to one I posted before. After reading the responses in that thread, I've come to the conclusion that there is no single definition of abstract photography. I also think there's some consensus that photographs in this genre have varying degrees of subject matter that may not be readily identifiable (in the ordinary sense of identifying anything - a bird, a building, etc.)</p>

<p>Tim, you seem to have misunderstood the no-words forum series of images of "abstract" you link to. It is the thumb sign which is abstract in those images and not images.<br>

Michael, thanks.</p>

<p>Anders, not misunderstood...just don't agree it's an abstract whether it's a sign or shape of the thumb. If you're joking, I can't tell.</p>

<p>The OP does not give any information to me that they understand it according to what you're saying. The photos are not abstract and neither is the concept IMO.</p>

<p>A more apt word as I was taught and understood from my art school days is "Symbolism" with maybe a bit of "Expressionism". But there's no NW category for that. I'ld just go with Pictorial like everyone else does.</p>

<p>Tim, it seems that we have a more generalized problem of just using the word abstract around here, not only related to art, but now also related to gestures.<br>

Abstract hand gestures are gestured where the hands and persons involved are backgrounded, and the represented and commonly shared action/ process or psychological meaning itself is foregrounded. Abstract hand gestured are widely use in our daily life. Also in sign languages, are there many very abstract signs. So the finger gesture represented in the No-word forum are indeed an abstract gesture. And I'm not joking :)<br>

Surely "symbolism" can be referred to too, which uses tons of abstract symbols. </p>

<p >Def. A symbol : a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract.</p>

 

<p>Here's where I think abstraction comes into the "thumbs-up" No-Words thread:</p>

<p>A thumbs-up is the gestural symbol of an <em>abstract idea</em>, an idea for which there is no physical referent. "Freedom" is an abstract idea and, similarly, a thumbs-up represents such an abstract idea. The thought of a rock or a house is concrete. What we think of when a thumbs-up is given is an abstract, not a concrete, idea.</p>

<p>There may be a fine distinction to be made here, but I can see why these photos could be themed under an "abstract" sub-category and I can also see why that sub-category might be a bit misleading. These photos are not abstract photos per se, or in a more typical sense of "abstract photo," because they are representational in that they clearly depict a known and recognizable gesture/symbol. But they are photos of a <em>gesture which "points to" an abstract idea</em>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A thumbs-up is the gestural symbol of an <em>abstract idea</em>,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't see that as an abstract idea at all. It's more a cultural euphemism through repeated use by the public at large to say..."<em>Everything</em> is <em>Excitedly good or OK"</em><br /> <br /> That's not abstract. That's a clear communication set to word thoughts in the form of a symbol. Is a stop sign communicating an abstract idea? It better not! Or we're going to have a lot of wrecks due to misinterpretation of the abstract thought/idea of... STOP YOUR FREAKIN' 3000+ POUND MOTORIZED VEHICLE BEFORE YOU KILL SOMEONE WITH IT!</p>

<p>What do Abstracts communicate? Answer that and I'll understand the No Words thread I mentioned here, but it better make sense and be logical. No wishy-washy talking in circles type stuff.</p>

<p>I will consider the angle of "communicating abstractly", but that means what's communicated isn't concrete.</p>

<p><strong>"When the sage points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger" </strong><br>

<strong>(abstract gesture, concrete, finger)</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

Maybe it is time to go back to discussing abstract photography.</p>

<p>An abstract communicates a gesture or expression of a perceived alternate reality sensed by the viewer as being sourced from reality to create enough ambiguity in order to allow the viewer to receive first the emotion, expression or feeling they perceive from the abstract image before the mind has time to see it or pick out elements they see as a real object or even part of reality.</p>

<p>My mind sees a picture of a REAL thumb first before I see the emotion it's communicating through its symbolism. This is my reasons for not calling it an Abstract in execution or as an abstraction. </p>

<p>Abstracts hover within an ambiguous definition of reality between expression and symbolism and thus creating a newer and different reality or interpretation of it. This is why most can't pick a part the elements of an abstract so that they can define it strictly as a real representation of reality or figure.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>"When the sage points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger" </strong><br /><strong>(abstract gesture, concrete, finger)</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's no emotion in that statement, so to me it makes no sense. Try again.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Here's my example of what I consider an image that fits my definition of an abstract photo.</p>

<p>The viewer looks at the feeling or impression or sensory gestures provided by the shapes and shadows and subtle texture detail of the painted window sill and of the blind before they see it as just a close up picture of a window blind. I've created enough ambiguity to the viewer into feeling the blind and painted texture of the window sill before the mind defines as a real object.</p>

<p>It's the speed or degree of attenuation between mind and emotion created in this ambiguity that determines it's level of abstraction.</p><div></div>

<p>"Everything is excitedly good or OK" is an abstract idea.</p>

<p>"This is a rock" is a concrete idea.</p>

<p>Goodness, Freedom, Love, Fear, Excitement are abstract. They don't point to a referent.</p>

<p>Rock, Shoulder, Lady crossing the street, Automobile in the rain are concrete. They point to a referent.</p>

<p>OK, Fred. That jibes with the definition of Abstract used as an adjective doing a google search. </p>

<p>So emotion is an abstract concept. It's the undefinable. So apparently I'm partly right about feeling the emotion of an abstract photo first before seeing it as a concrete, physical form.</p>

<p>The thumbs up NW thread is just using the category of Abstract as an adjective of the idea behind the thumbs up sign, not a noun. But you do agree the images aren't abstract photos?</p>

<p>I like your thumb-rule question under the picture, but I would reformulate and add the reverse process</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Do you sense and feel the shapes and forms first before you see the window blind?</em><br>

<em>Do you see the window blind first and then you only/mainly sense and feel the shapes and forms ?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>In both cases we have degrees of abstraction by simplifying, exaggerating, stylizing or otherwise modifying, colours, lines and forms.<br>

This would be the primary type of abstraction photographers tend to do because it starts with the photographed reality : objects, cityscapes, nature etc.<br>

There is however also the totally non-representational form of abstract photography witch starts directly with colors, forms and lines to create a composition, which the photographer senses and feels.</p>

<p>Both are abstract photography.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The thumbs up NW thread is just using the category of Abstract as an adjective of the idea behind the thumbs up sign, not a noun. But you do agree the images aren't abstract photos?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. And I already said as much in my post on Nov.5 at 5:52 a.m., the relevant paragraph of which is quoted here:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>There may be a fine distinction to be made here, but I can see why these photos could be themed under an "abstract" sub-category and I can also see why that sub-category might be a bit misleading. These photos are not abstract photos per se, or in a more typical sense of "abstract photo," because they are representational in that they clearly depict a known and recognizable gesture/symbol. But they are photos of a <em>gesture which "points to" an abstract idea</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you feel the shapes & forms first before you see it's just a window blind?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I see it as shapes and forms first and that, to me, is where the abstraction aspect lies.<br>

<br>

Someone may not respond to an abstract emotionally (to the extent we can avoid reacting to anything emotionally) but still recognize it as an abstract.<br>

<br>

With Mondrian's paintings, for example, the first thing I see is the geometry (before I feel whatever emotion is produced) and that's what suggests to me that it's an abstract, especially when I keep looking and don't find an overtly figurative aspect.<br>

<br>

The concept of an emotion is an abstract concept. And I appreciate what you're saying about your emotional reaction coming first when you see the shapes before you make out that it's a photo of window blinds. I'm not sure I'd say, though, that the primacy of the emotional reaction is what makes it abstract, even though emotional concepts are abstract concepts. I'd say the lack of recognition of "what it's a photo of" is what makes it abstract. HOWEVER, I'd want to think about it more, because I kind of like the connection you're making between the abstractness of emotion and emotional responses to the visual world. I'm just not sure right now how I'd piece all that together. It will take some thought, if I ever come up with something.<br>

<br>

</p>