Contemporary Abstract Photographers

<p>Theory alert! If you hate theory STOP READING NOW!!</p>

<p>This post is Arthur's fault. :)</p>

<p>This is from Mel Bochner. In accepting what is pretty obvious from this thread (the difficulty of avoiding the figurative in an essentially figurative medium), he writes, "... as it became increasingly apparent that illusionism of some sort was impossible to avoid, it made more sense to exploit it on its own terms ..." He moved to seriality: exploiting the space between pictures. He went on:<br>

.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"One result of a method such as seriality tends to be a certain visual complexity uncommon to primary, or single-image art. [bill Ross, are you smiling?] The usage of conflicting conceptual and visual orders reverses, in often irritating ways, the continuity of time. Often the logic of the structure does not coincide with the structural elements. Contrary to formal demands, forms tend to appear heavy, inert, or clumsy. Redeeming factors are not quickly apparent. Severe, highly artificial, and uncomfortable, the work often appears cold or highly Manneristic.</p>

<p>"Frustration has become a key response to certain recent art. Frustration because the viewer is looking for a complete "idea" and is foiled. The notion of completion (i.e. self-containment) is at fault. What is thought and what is experienced continually replace each other. Nothing reveals itself without at the same time concealing something else. The concealed is the source of thought. And thought, which we hoped to use to "fill in the gaps," is in itself bottomless or ... incomplete. So every work is only the residue of thought's attempt to simultaneously close itself up and its frustration at not being able to do so. The artwork, whatever "form" it might take, is the visible center of an axis connecting intention and disappointment."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>.<br>

That bit in the last paragraph: "<em>The notion of completion (i.e. self-containment) is at fault</em>," is key. It's a better way of getting at what I was trying to say with: "Abstract is what it does."</p>

<p>Bochner is a good reference for our continuing discussion on what is "abstract photography".<br /> One of his more known photographical abstract works is "<a href="http://67.media.tumblr.com/8b301941e50a4e7c8f3344426cdec83b/tumblr_ne7qup9Qa81qz4txfo1_1280.jpg">Surface Dis/Tension, 1968</a>". Here is a detailed description of how it was made:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>He "photographed a grid receding into space so that, distilled as an image, it appeared perspectically distorted. Taking this photo as a base object, Bochner soaked the print in water, allowing the emulsion to buckle the paper as it dried. He then reshot this processed image both in negative and positive, combining the two versions in the darkroom and thereby creating more layers of photographic strata, before mounting the meta-image on aluminum and trimming the metal to follow the uneven edges of the now thoroughly denatured grid. The final work is a photograph, and yet not a photograph at all: It is an image of the photographic medium being taken to its own material limits, as well as a sculptural, process-based, and Conceptual work of art--the photograph as recorder of abstract ideas. <br /> "it is often the case with Bochner that an idea appears simultaneously as one thing and its inverse."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In most galleries such a work would be labelled as a "mixed media" work, which I certainly would include in our "abstract photography" forum, if camera and photographs are included in the process.<br /> <br /> Julie, I did, despite your warning, try to read the text, but with my limited english literacy I found it highly abstract (sic!) and difficult to follow. I'll try again after a strong cup of expresso.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That bit in the last paragraph: "<em>The notion of completion (i.e. self-containment) is at fault</em>," is key. It's a better way of getting at what I was trying to say with: "Abstract is what it does."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And I believe answers my question to you, Julie, by what you meant with your term..."elements aren't talking to each other" in reference to my colorful saucer image. A disappointment even though I agree with you on that. It's pretty colors for sure but what are the other forms in the image doing to address or coalesce that idea or at least take it to a higher place.</p>

<p>After two cups of coffee I totally understood the quoted theory you posted, Julie.</p>

<p>And after the coffee, and referring to the two paragraphs from the Mel Bochner text, above (Julie)<br>

<br>

Concerning the first paragraph on: “<strong>seriality tends to be a certain visual complexity uncommon to primary, or single-image art</strong>”<br>

- “<em>formal demands</em>”: which formal demands ? Why “formal”.<br>

- “<em>Redeeming factors</em>”: redeeming for what ?<br>

- “<em>the work often appears cold or highly Manneristic</em>” - Why is that especially related to seriality and not equally correct for many single-image works ?<br>

- Bill Ross, who is he ?<br>

<br>

Second paragraph on: "<strong>Frustration has become a key response to certain recent art</strong>" <br>

- Hasn't that been the case for all art forms, leaving aside fireman-works of art (l'art pompier) - and yet ?<br>

- "<em>the viewer is looking for a complete "idea</em>"" - No ! They mostly are not. They might just happen, like the artist, to be looking for some hints about an idea, a sensation, an understanding....<br>

- "<em>The concealed is the source of thought</em>" - adding to the revealed and the tension between the two.<br>

- "<em>to use to "fill in the gaps,</em>" - only relevant to a "zero-sum game" type of universe, which is not the realm of art, which challenges the borders of understanding and perception - which he maybe refers to by "in itself bottomless or ... incomplete".<br>

- "<em>The artwork, whatever "form" it might take, is the visible center of an axis connecting intention and disappointment.</em>" - or maybe better: highly satisfying infinite small steps towards Nirvana. Where is the frustration ?<br>

<br>

All together, in my view, a text, that is certainly not "theory". Just fairly in-transparent writing, like a happening, where words are written for the experience of them, more than for understanding.</p>

<p>Don't say I didn't try, despite Julie's warning.<br>

All the fault of Arthur, it seems :)<br>

Back to my morning coffee !</p>

<p>"Abstract is what it does." - just like in all other creative works. </p>

<p>"Dad, I hate war."<br>

"Why, son?"<br>

"Because war makes history, and I hate history."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“<em>the work often appears cold or highly Manneristic</em>” - Why is that especially related to seriality and not equally correct for many single-image works ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anders, I'm getting a cold and highly manneristic feeling from your last image due to the series (seriality) of those two darker gray forms against a colorless lighter gray background. I'm disappointed in not seeing your intention behind such an image. </p>

<p>Only two 12 oz. cups of Starbuck's Pike Place Medium Roast I ground and brewed myself to come up with that interpretation.</p>

<p>You put too much into it, Tim. Nothing very complicated or occult about it.<br>

It is just a obvious abstract image in what ever terms such images have been discussed now for days in this forum.</p>

<p>Tim, <a href="https://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/strand_betterment03.jpg">here (from Clare Strand's <em>The Betterment Room</em>)</a> is an interesting one for you to consider.</p>

<p>I claim that it is <em>not</em> an abstract. In fact, I think Clare Strand would be very unhappy if you took it to be an abstract. If you read <a href="http://clarestrand.co.uk/works/?id=103">her description of the project</a>, I think you should be able to see why. It is what it <em>is</em>; it is not an abstract idea or feeling.</p>

<p>Two similar ones from <em>The Betterment Room</em>, <a href="https://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/strand_betterment02.jpg">this one</a>, and <a href="https://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/strand_betterment01.jpg">this one</a>. Again, <a href="http://clarestrand.co.uk/works/?id=103">her explanation of the project</a> should make clear why these pictures, as presented, are not meant as abstract pictures.</p>

<p>I don't think anyone has suggested, that Clare Strands works have much to do with abstract photography. They are examples of surreal photography, including the Betterment series. She is certainly interesting as such.<br>

Unless, one sees the Betterment room series as documentary and accepts them as an invitation (which she does not intend to give) to travel back to the days of Taylorism, Fordism and American industrial history beginning of last century.</p>

<p>It is what then ? Documentary ?</p>

<p>I think this type of ping pong is not very useful to any of us.</p>

<p>What I think we should do would be doing is to: <br>

- exchange knowledge and information on what such an image is meant for by the artist and maybe by others who have looked at it and made up an argued opinion.<br>

- exchange information on our own take on such images : documentary, social commentary, abstract, surrealistic, performance or what ever - "...... is what it does".</p>

<p>But meanwhile: <br>

The surreal dimension of the Betterment comes out of her own explanation and the choice of title. As you know the Betterment Room was a real room created in 1912 to further the development of so-called scientific management by studying the movements of workers doing specific repetitive task in the American industry. Taylorism and Fordism were subject to strong resistance from workers and trade unions and were condemned as inhuman. The American Congress organised an infamous Hearing on the subject, which by the way is indeed quite surrealistic, with Winston Taylor defending his 'scientific" approach to increasing workers productivity and achieving control over the work process. Finally, Taylor et co won and the system was generalised in mass-production throughout the World and even Lenin celebrated.</p>

<p>Many of these images related to the studies and experiments (read George Homans, The Human Group for example) were admired <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ai9j36Zbzog/TZQGVol6qpI/AAAAAAAAA_U/QhnhmEiK-lQ/s1600/TAYLORISM%201894.gif">like this</a>, on blacksmith work, or this "<a href="https://rosswolfe.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/gastevvvvvv.jpg">Motion test, 1924</a>, that comes from the Constructivists Russian artist Gastev (<a href="https://thecharnelhouse.org/tag/taylorism/">read about him here</a>). </p>

<p>When now Clare Strand takes up such themes and technics and even calls it the "Betterment room" we have a direct pointed finger to the event, the place and the time. I would tend to see her images from that series, not as a copying of what was done then, after all here pictures have no link to real work, but are symbols of what human "work" has come to be - an exercise in absurdism. </p>