You'ld Had To Have Been There Seeing Abstractly...

<p>...in order to get the results the viewer now sees.</p>

<p>How many of you feel that where, when and what you shoot plays a major role in the final results that are presented in a more or less abstract fashion or style? Another way to put it is how much is attributed to the photographer's seeing abstractly versus what, when, where they're shooting (including dumb luck and accidents) in how it plays a role in creating a compelling abstract photo? </p>

<p>Photographers who shoot abstract photos do a somewhat visual magic trick as has been said before by another PN contributor (Sanford) but at what stage the magical manipulation begins comes into question in order for others to learn from the photographer when they attempt to include the details in arriving at the final results. What makes the magic? Just pointing and shooting at the right place and time or is there more?</p>

<p>Should we share our methods on the process so others can learn?</p>

<p>Or will just a general understanding of how to change up the process starting from how to go hunting for subjects and scenes to first seeing and composing through the lens to tripping the shutter and then changing the results further in post?</p>

<p>How can we be inspired by a finished abstract photo without knowing how it was done and not by just saying what inspired the photographer into making it look the way it does? Do we really want to copy another photographer's process and say it was made by inspired instruction? Inspiration doesn't teach anything to anyone unless each step that drove the inspiration to the final result is divulged.</p>

<p>What are your thoughts on this? Post some abstract photos if needed to make your point.</p><div></div>

<p>I think it's best to leave it untitled. Identifying the subject in reality kind of destroys the element of wonder necessary for an abstract to work as intended.</p>

<p>Here's my example. Leaving it untitled would let the wonder linger a bit - unless they happen be familiar with the Arizona desert. Call it "Saguarro", and the reaction is "Oh, OK, moving right along..."</p><div></div>

<p>I find I search for alignments as if for gold nuggets, the more abstract the better. Here is an everyday one that forms an abstract composition for me.</p><div></div>

<p>If you know how to hit a ball and run around the bases, do you know all you need to know to play in the major leagues? "Inspired" is meaningless by itself. Inspired to <em>what</em>?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I Am Making Art</em>, black and white video, 15 min, w/sound</p>

<p><em>I Am Making Art</em> is a parody of body art and the idea that every action, movement, and intention is potentially an art act. Baldessari stands in front of the camera in an empty space. He moves slightly, one or both hands changing position minutely, as he repeats the statement, "I am making art," at every variation. His gestures remain understated and deadpan, sometimes hieratic, sometimes like an awkward choreography as he touches different parts of his body as if it were a vessel imbued with art.</p>

<p>[<em>line break added</em>] He explores the perimeter of frame, disappearing from camera range at the bottom with only his arms showing, or going off screen left and right with only one arm left in the frame. The syntax of the sentence varies throughout the tape. Sometimes the emphasis is "I am making art," sometimes "I am making <em>art</em>," sometimes "I am <em>making</em> art," the first conveying the objectification of his gestures, the second a spoof of the transitive aspects of process art. The statement is said almost as a way of convincing himself — or the art character he is playing — that he is an artist.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Quoted from <em>More Than you Wanted to Know About John Baldessari</em>.</p>

<p>Although I like using the cooking analogy for other aspects of making, I don't think it works well for the originating impulse of making a thing of art. In the cooking analogy, you only tinker with one end of the process (what will be made): you know the other end (what it's for). In art, <em>both</em> ends are one-of-a-kind instances.</p>

<p>I find out 'what it's for' by watching myself do it: is this because I love my viewers?; or because I hate them?; do I want to make them happy, scare them, confuse them, mock them? What's going on? I can't know this until I'm working the material; what is it capable of and what do I want it to do? What does <em>it</em> want to do? It tells me as much as I tell it; and that's in the conversation of the making. In every instance, it should be because of what's ingredient; <em>this, now, here</em>. The 'method and process' is to make sure it <em>is</em> germinated from the ingredients and not formula, imitation, rote or habit.</p>

<p>I meant that cooking is meant to be eaten.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was thinking and seeing abstractly</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think one has to do this in order to get the benefit of your analogy (and all analogies) as well.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle actually used a wider notion of analogy. They saw analogy as <strong>a shared abstraction</strong>. Analogous objects did not share necessarily a relation, but also an idea, a pattern, a regularity, an attribute, an effect or a philosophy. These authors also accepted that comparisons, metaphors and allegories could be used as arguments, and sometimes they called them <em>analogies</em>. Analogies should also make those abstractions easier to understand and give confidence to the ones using them. <strong>An analogy is not an equivalence</strong>. It is a resemblance in some particulars by otherwise unlike things.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It applies when you talk about "directly translatable" to a viewer as well. Your photos and their meanings to you aren't necessarily equal to what a viewer will get out of them. It works more abstractly than that, more like an analogy (metaphor, simile . . .)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I finalized and developed that raw image into the one below which for me illustrated both the conflict and dependency between classicism ( depicted by the ornamental frame ) and modernism ( depicted by the abstract play of light and shadow ). The fact that it was photographed in Paris also played a role in this regard, connecting it to the rich art history of the city.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As for the final results which is the best solution IMO for that shot of a picture frame how much of that solution was sourced from you already having in your mind Classicism and Modernism which to me suggests it's not an original idea or a spontaneous, random thought driving you forward to the final results.</p>

<p>Or maybe you are labeling the results after you saw how good it looks. Some of this creative process has to be centered around liking the process as well as the subject, not noting it fits or addresses preconceived artistic labels such as Classicism and Modernism.</p>

<p>So Phil, what did you like in the somewhat mundane image of a picture frame? That it's a good representation of Classicism and Modernism or that you came up with an original solution in your head to make the image not so mundane?</p>

<p>I know my OP was a bit loaded with questions but my answer to Phil's example above from reading how he describes the process doesn't offer any ideas for me at least on how to make better abstract photos, the main point of my topic. Him being in Paris and noticing the empty picture frame tells me where and when is the main driving force in the results as it is with any abstract photo.</p>

<p>Maybe we can't learn by observing other's work because of time and place restrictions and having to work with what we have. We all possess some ability of seeing abstractly, but we will still be limited on the results by our own time and place.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Phil, your window frame shots inspired me to offer this...</p><div></div>

<p>Abstract vision, photograph straight out of camera.</p><div></div>

<p>For myself, I find it easier to see abstraction in the environment and to choose what to shoot than to create it either by arrangement or post processing. That's not a judgment, just an observation. Sometimes I just like the way a thing looks or is arranged, without having a clear idea why.</p><div></div>