This Forum

I must confess that I have no idea who is moderating the Abstract Forum, if anyone. An issue, which I have noticed myself, has been brought to my attention by another member. Although, especially for our purposes, there is no single definition of abstract photography, I think it's safe to say that we should post only those images that have no, or at least some, unidentifiable elements, or some with identifiable elements with abstract "touches", i.e., various sorts of distortions.

 

Henceforth, I plan not to "like" those images which do not meet the descriptions stated above. I urge everyone else to do the same. Of course, if you have any of your own proposals for dealing with this matter, please - let's discuss them.

 

michael

The abstract forum is one I've set for alerts when something new has started. At least twice I wasn't paying close attention and thought I was responding to the "no words" forum. So I'm guilty. Maybe having the word "abstract" in the subject title would help.

Maybe having the word "abstract" in the subject title would help.

 

Good idea, Sanford.

there is no single definition of abstract photography

Therein lies the tale / issue! If there is no accepted definition, how can anyone meet conditions or rules. A bit like the famous definition of pornography by a Judge "I know it when I see it!"

I suppose those who are offended by the naturalistic images sometimes posted here could always squint or cross their eyes?

It is easy to lose track of what forum you are in, especially if you have come in from "new posts", as I often do.

 

Nobody forces you to "like" anything. For quite different reasons, I never do.

As for LIKES... I think of them as "I took the time to look at your picture and, subjectively, like it" regardless of quality, it fit the theme. I LIKE what you did or tried to do is how I interpret it.

 

I don't think it was intended to be a critique.

 

.

I think this definition, from Wikipedia, or some close variation, works well:

 

“Abstract photography, sometimes called non-objective photography, is a means of depicting a visual image that does not have an immediate association with the object world and that has been created through the use of photographic equipment, processes or materials.”

 

This simple definition of abstract art also applies and is similar:

 

“Abstract art is art that does not attempt to represent external reality, but seeks to achieve its effect using shapes, forms, colors, and textures.”

 

There will always be looser and more strict interpretations, of course, but it’s not all that hard to agree on a baseline understanding of this subject.

 

 

 

Justice Potter Stewart used the “I know it when I see it” rule as a grand copout. Without arguing the details of pornography, I think it’s safe to say abstract art has a long history of being understood within some easily grasped parameters. It might be more reasonable to say we know what’s not an abstract photo when we see it, and we see many of them in this forum.

 

Every photo can be looked at abstractly, in terms of shape, line, and color. But not every photo is an abstract photo, and there can be agreed upon characteristics to help determine what is and what is not an abstract photo.

 

Gary, my statement about the (alleged) lack of a single definition is the result of forum discussions, both before and after PN-2's rollout. Yet, your point - as well as Sandy's and Paul's, is well taken. So, I'm retracting what I stated in the OP.

Gary, my statement about the (alleged) lack of a single definition is the result of forum discussions, both before and after PN-2's rollout. Yet, your point - as well as Sandy's and Paul's, is well taken. So, I'm retracting what I stated in the OP.

My intent in commenting was to suggest that some parameters would make it possible to achieve a more satisfying result for you from the Abstract threads. Wiki is not a particularly reliable source for anything IMO. Here a couple of links- first most useful, particularly the summary.

Definition: Abstract Photography - Photokonnexion

How Abstract Photography Has Evolved and Still Continues to Inspire Art

Sandy, the discussions to which I alluded did not yield anything in way of agreement or consensus as to what constitutes abstract photography. I'm happy to look at what you provided, but in the final analysis, it's not up to me alone to make the call.

Michael, can you link to the discussion, or one of the discussions, you’re talking about where a consensus about what abstract is could not be found?

 

Gary, I'll try my best, but there's no guarantee I'll find anything . My fading memory tells me that these discussions occurred at least 5 years ago.

OMG, today must be my day to play the lottery. Check this out: Abstract Photography Forum is Launched!.

Had you looked at the article,

And you know this how? Mind reading like whats his name on TV... ? Except for the most trivial issues I find Wiki less than credible, and prefer to take the trouble to do my own searches and fins my own sources..

How to keep it focused is exactly the issue.

Therein lies the tale / issue! If there is no accepted definition, how can anyone meet conditions or rules. A bit like the famous definition of pornography by a Judge "I know it when I see it!"

I don't know if this will help or hurt, but the Tate has what I think is an excellent & sensible section on art terms on their website. Here's a link to the page on abstract art - I like the entire discussion and illustrative examples.

 

After reviewing some of the older threads & posts in the forum, I wonder if some of the discord isn't simply over levels of abstraction. To me, abstracting is the simple act of isolating one or more elements from an entity and offering it/them as a true representation of something (which may or may not be the original, inspirational entity). A more aggressive, radical abstractionist might isolate and use one or two colors or lines to represent an entire scene, e.g. blue and green as an abstract grassy field or a C and an S back to back as a facial profile. And on the timid end of abstraction, there are those who see irony in a scene and present it unaltered but with a title to guide the intended reinterpretation.

 

I can't find an image I made about 50 years ago of a young tree standing straight and tall, with the stake and wire that formerly supported it hanging from its trunk (presumably having been pulled out of the ground as the tree grew) - so I can't post it right now. I liked the imagery and irony of the support's needing support from its former dependent. I've always considered this image to be abstract art because it isolated and re-presented two elements in new context: the changing nature of dependency, and how guidance and support can help the young grow up strong and resilient. But to those for whom a true abstract picture has to lack identifiable objective content, it's (in the words of an old girlfriend) "stupid".

 

It's just my 2c, but there's room for all of us. If the abstract space gets a little crowded, tolerance and respect for others' concepts is the lubricant that keeps us from chafing against each other :)