questions to the abstract forum

There doesn't appear to be a posted set of rules for the Abstract forum similar to other photography categories so I'm assuming it follows the basic rules of one image per person with the option to post comments to start a discussion by anyone interested and motivated to do so.

No Words is not technically a photography category but a topic driven by subject "free for all" where one image per person stands as one of the rules with the option to post only short comments that explains circumstances related to the scene and how it was captured which might include post processing, camera and exposure specs, etc.

is abstract an image only forum?

My understanding has always been that it's not a No Words forum and a discussion would be fine. That being said, it's mostly followed in the footsteps of No Words, with little discussion. But I see no reason why an interesting discussion couldn't be started. Possibly some very interesting threads could be a mixture of photo and discussion, where we posted examples of something and talked a bit about those examples, if desired. I'd like to see it as a mostly one-photo-per-person-per-thread situation, except in special circumstances, for instance when some sort of comparison is being made by someone for illustrative purposes or when a short string of photos might help make a point.

One thing I wouldn't mind discussing right off the bat is what we all think should fall under the heading "Abstract." I tend to be somewhat liberal when it comes to interpretation and making rules. Nevertheless, since we have a wide open No Words forum in terms of style and genre, I’d like to see the Abstract forum remain a forum for abstract photos. For me, that would include photos which are not purely abstract but which at least contain a major sense of abstraction. Do others think we seem to have gotten away from this lately?

My understanding has always been that it's not a No Words forum and a discussion would be fine. That being said, it's mostly followed in the footsteps of No Words, with little discussion. But I see no reason why an interesting discussion couldn't be started. Possibly some very interesting threads could be a mixture of photo and discussion, where we posted examples of something and talked a bit about those examples, if desired. I'd like to see it as a mostly one-photo-per-person-per-thread situation, except in special circumstances, for instance when some sort of comparison is being made by someone for illustrative purposes or when a short string of photos might help make a point.

 

One thing I wouldn't mind discussing right off the bat is what we all think should fall under the heading "Abstract." I tend to be somewhat liberal when it comes to interpretation and making rules. Nevertheless, since we have a wide open No Words forum in terms of style and genre, I’d like to see the Abstract forum remain a forum for abstract photos. For me, that would include photos which are not purely abstract but which at least contain a major sense of abstraction. Do others think we seem to have gotten away from this lately?

Fred, I remember when the abstract forum initially was created, it consisted mostly of discussion regarding the nature of abstract photography. Posts on these threads occasionally were accompanied by images, primarily intended as examples. Somehow the discussion kind of faded away. I mentioned all of this to Josh (inoneeye) in a private message.

...since we have a wide open No Words forum in terms of style and genre, I’d like to see the Abstract forum remain a forum for abstract photos. For me, that would include photos which are not purely abstract but which at least contain a major sense of abstraction.

Compare the first abstracts/ abstractions posted to this forum in 2016 with the recent threads... there were very good abstracts and abstractions in the early ABSTRACT POTW . The early discussions were also very informative. I think the recent threads have strayed too far from any reason to have a stand alone forum.

As to be expected, the discussions attempting to define abstract photography were of many opinions. Good discussions there.

One thing I wouldn't mind discussing right off the bat is what we all think should fall under the heading "Abstract."

Photo abstract. I find it more challenging to create a pure photo abstract than with painting or sculpture due to the nature of lifting directing from reality.

I do not believe there is a single obvious definition. I don't care to have one. But it does appeal to me to have some loose guidelines by consensus. I do like that you Fred have noted a distinction between abstract and abstraction. For myself when reaching for a label I have my lines for what is abstract and or abstraction or neither. I also have in a less fluid category for what a pure abstract means to me.

Often a pure abstract is helped by a title or explanation of the concept or feeling that I am attempting to capture &or create &or convey.

I can give some recently posted examples.

Animals (alive, dead, stuffed)

of course this is not an alive,dead, stuffed animal but it is an abstract of my feelings when encountering a dead animal. more of an abstraction for me to to the degree of reality used.

this was originally taken as an attempt to be a representation of my feelings at seeing a dead animal. an abstract. unpleasantness intended.

It ended up in reflections and for me it becomes more an abstraction there. My intent is not to represent any concept or feeling. The connection and abstraction is in that they are reflection photos in a parking lot and a parked jeep.

Abstract Landscape

It is obvious what it is, slices of a tree. It is an graphic abstraction and for myself not an abstract.

Inversions

Definitely not an abstract imo. The abstraction was in the motivation for creating it.. I was trying to convey an emotion and state of being.

The attempt seems obvious while the title for emotion/state of being less so.

While a title or explanation does not make an abstract out of a abstraction, the intent of the creator or the interpretation of the viewer can often take it there.

That is the fluidity that i find in determining what is an abstract. I would enjoy if some of the posters wanted to guide me to how they see there postings as abstract.

Titles or explanations ... In other photography I don't fee any need for titles or explanations. With abstract photography (and other mediums) I often find an appreciation for titles and or explanations. Abstracts in particular can be challenging as a viewer.

As I think it should be, only abuse will bring "RULES"

so,

don't do one-person 'shows'

keep discussion of images to a modest level.

Even representational photography can be abstract when it stands for something, I suppose

JDMvW, I assume you are directing your words to my post primarily.

As I think it should be, only abuse will bring "RULES"

so,

don't do one-person 'shows'

keep discussion of images to a modest level.

ok. status quo in the practice and technique forum of abstract. Is abuse perceived in my posting of visual examples? Are you suggesting a limitation of examples? I would have preferred to use others photos for better examples but alas there is a rule.

Even representational photography can be abstract when it stands for something, I suppose

If anything can be an abstract when it stands for something then I would enjoy hearing when and what it stands for. Or I don't see why it is not another no words.

Abstract?

I do not see the reason for questioning it as a loosely defined photo abstract.

I am feeling my way through this forum, I have questions re this forum and 'abstract photography' that do not seem have clear answers and like very much exploring beyond the status quo. I am interested in what makes abstract photography. If most others that participate in this forum feel and voice that this is not the place for that style of learning then so be it.

DMvW, I assume you are directing your words to my post primarily.

As a matter of fact, not at all...

But now that I do look over your post and your "response" to me, I can only say that I think you are worrying too much. One of the real strengths of Photo.net is that (aside from the 'strict' nature posts, and that was resolved amicably) we're pretty loosey goosey.

I don't get the sense Josh is "worrying." I think he may want a couple of things. Please correct me, Josh, if I'm wrong.

a) to use this forum, at least in part, as a place not only to share photos but to learn, and

b) to in some important way separate this forum from the No Words forum . . . Abstract forum doesn't have to be neatly and tightly defined but it ought to mean SOMETHING different from other forums.

While I believe any photo, no matter how literal and realistic, can be LOOKED AT (and probably should be looked at) abstractly, I don't believe every photo is an abstract photo or belongs in this forum. And this is coming from a guy who also doesn't particularly care for rules. So I don't choose to see this as a rule, but as the fulfillment of a genre exercise. Why have an abstract forum if there's not going to be at least a rudimentary agreement on what the thing means? Much as I might resist restrictions, especially as a photographer and especially in art, some restrictions actually foster creativity. Restricting this forum to a somewhat loose but nevertheless agreed-upon sense of abstract and abstraction seems like just the kind of restriction that could be seen not as a rule but as an opportunity . . . for exploration.

I think a distinction needs to be made on what a photographic abstract is from a photographed abstract. Anyone can construct a scene using elements such as cut up and torn color paper in a pile and photograph it and call it an abstract photo. It will be obvious to the viewer that it is not that at all. Nothing wrong with staging a scene to come across as abstract if done so in a way as to not make this obvious. Photos are very good at communicating intent about what's being photographed but in a more strict and direct way over abstract paintings.

This is where the photographer can toy with the viewer by making this intent ambiguous or obvious. It comes down to whether the photographer can shoot in an abstract style and show intent or meaning in how and what is being photographed. If there is no sign of something real in the scene then it becomes a digital illustration where you can't tell if the scene was created by photographing reality or an abstract painting. Shooting graffiti in a way that doesn't draw attention that it's just a photo of graffiti is an exception but the intent really needs to be made clear or else the photographer is just recording another artist's work. I believe context would have to be considered.

There has to be a "conveyed idea" to the viewer that a camera was used to photograph a real scene but with the intent to convey an abstract view of reality. When the photographed scene blurs the lines between reality and abstract is when it's functioning at its best using the photographic process to communicate abstractly IMO.