Are photos capable of abstraction?

Or are they all the time a rather down-to-earth portrayal of reality?

I think it’s not either/or.

 

The most down to earth portrayal of reality can be presented with an eye or focus on the abstract inherent in any visual or aesthetic endeavor.

 

Yes, some photos are more literal and some more abstract. Clearly, photos handle both. But they’re not mutually exclusive.

 

Look at some of the great documentary and journalistic photos, or some very narrative, literal street photos, and notice how so many utilize a sense of abstraction in order to focus the viewer or establish expression and interest.

 

The geometries of Cartier Bresson, the moods of Brassai, the contrasts of Moriyama, the colors of Eggleston, all support and comment on the literal subjects they offer.

I think it’s not either/or.- ditto''

 

I feel that many photos are abstractions reaching through or beyond the object we point our camera at. The camera as a tool can not only capture 'reality' based concrete objects it can also express in.tangible ideas, concepts & feelings, emotions.

I think some photos are 'pure' abstract ... a genre by my self imposed loose definition - photos that are much less or not at all identifiable as objects of reality. Sometimes the representational qualities are completely obscured and then we may be left to perceive or feel something expressed that is unrelated to the object.

I suppose there can be a lot of abstraction, especially when the Winogrand qoute "I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed" feels true.

The best photos are inspirational. They stir the senses. Some provide meaning beyond the obvious. They say something. Some are amusing.

There is nothing about photography that makes it qualitatively different from other, mostly two dimensional, art media.

 

 

Like a sewer, what comes out of it depends on what is put into it.

There is nothing about photography that makes it qualitatively different from other, mostly two dimensional, art media.

Depends how you look at it.

 

There are plenty of similarities and overlaps among the visual arts and other arts as well. But, photography has its unique qualities, too.

 

While a painter can sit in front of an existing bowl of fruit and paint its likeness, that painter can also paint a bowl of fruit that exists only in his head and then on canvas. For the most part, a photographer must use something directly and proximately in front of him in the world as a start.

 

I’d consider that a qualitative difference, though one that doesn’t lessen or detract from the many similarities.

 

In terms of potential abstraction, yes, each medium does have that potential.

Your comments help me formulating better what I was thinking about.

 

I am not thinking of the abstraction of a subject of a photograph, such as the Campbell soup can by Warhol, the graphic elements of Cartier-Bresson, the use of colour dye-transfer by Eggleston, etc.

 

I depart from the author's perspective, who intends to convey a certain message to their viewers by means of a picture and connect with their audience with a photo instead of a phrase, a poem or a written essay.

 

Does the author basically face the limits of the intrinsic tangibility, as indicated by inoneye, of the subject portrayed by the photo? Is the author constrained by the metaphorical incapability of the photo?

Depends how you look at it.

 

No.

My excessively anal and abstract thoughts on this interesting question, TLDR:

 

A quick on-line query of the word 'abstract' as an adjective gave "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence". That seems a reasonable definition to me. A 'photograph' however, by its very nature, relies on some concrete reality that is present in front of the film/sensor. The mathematician in me - one who goes by definitions, axioms, and lemmas - then comes to the conclusion that photographs cannot be abstract. When I think of abstract art Dali's "Persistence of Memory" or Munch's "The Scream" (not to mention Picasso's works, or the random splashes of paint by others) come to mind and these images clearly had no concrete existence. Yes, I could be challenged that Picasso had women models sitting when he painted his rather distorted images and Munch could have asked someone to pose with mouth open and hands on their ears but the only rendition of the scene was what came out of the artist's head. When I try to think of abstract photographs, Weston's "Pepper #30", long exposure pin-hole images, lens-baby stuff, infrared stuff, comes to mind but in all of those images there was something physical and concrete that existed to produce the image that was then recorded on a light-sensitive medium, requiring no human intervention.

 

But now we have photoshop so one can take that physically captured image and do with it whatever their mind conjures up, so all my clever logic and legalism goes out the window.

Are photos capable of abstraction? Or are they all the time a rather down-to-earth portrayal of reality?

Of course they are capable of abstraction. Abstraction being synonymous with concepts and ideas, you see it easily in works by Cindy Shermann, Hiroshi Sugimoto, Richard Prince etc.

@movingfinger, the precision of your logic, founded on the coherence of a straightforward definition, is certainly one way to look at it. It has an academic validity and it notes that unique aspect of photography I mentioned above.

 

The problem for me lies in that combination of academic fidelity and lack of imagination. Imagination is a key to both art and abstract thinking. I don’t think the term abstract art was ever applied because it fit the exact definition you quoted but rather because that definition provided a jumping off point.

 

You can count on artists not to play by the rules and to use dictionaries not necessarily to limit themselves to given definitions but to help them create new languages, which is kind of their thing.

 

Lets put it this way. There’s a notion of abstract out there that would seem to exclude photography. Rather than dissuade photographers of a certain bent, it provides all the more inspiration and challenge.

 

I’m afraid while someone will be trying to define them away, they’ll be creating an accepted genre of photography and displaying abstract photos in galleries, not just moving the needle but pricking some sticklers as they do. :)

 

Georgia O’Keeffe reminds us that abstract in art is as much about what comes from within as what is produced, the source in us as opposed to the external source material (or non-material).

”The abstraction is often the most definite form for the intangible thing in myself that I can clarify in paint.”

I suspect she’d think that intangible thing in a photographer can be clarified in print or on screen as well.

 

She chooses her words more like an artist than a scientist, almost begging us to feel and accept the contradiction implied in “the most definite form for the intangible thing.”

... A 'photograph' however, by its very nature, relies on some concrete reality that is present in front of the film/sensor. The mathematician in me - one who goes by definitions, axioms, and lemmas - then comes to the conclusion that photographs cannot be abstract.

 

Lets put it this way. There’s a notion of abstract out there that would seem to exclude photography. Rather than dissuade photographers of a certain bent, it provides all the more inspiration and challenge.

 

Georgia O’Keeffe reminds us that abstract in art is as much about what comes from within as what is produced, the source in us as opposed to the external source material (or non-material).

 

Thus can we say that a photograph is ontologically not-abstract but in combination of the self combined with the external source material (or non-material) (the subject?) it can become abstract?

 

And what about the connection to, and communication with, the beholder? How does the author manage these?

Photographs are incapable of showing reality. Edited February 10, 2022 by Sanford

Thus can we say that a photograph is ontologically not-abstract but in combination of the self combined with the external source material (or non-material) (the subject?) it can become abstract?

The photographer in me looks at it like this:

 

Objects in photos appear more and less abstractly. I can take a picture of a window that's relatively literal, showing the frame, the glass as clean as possible, perhaps the curtains hanging around it, a view outside in sharp focus and well exposed. I can also photograph that window very abstractly. In some abstract cases, the window will still be recognized as a window but its appearance will be altered enough that most people would see it as abstract. In some abstract cases, the window will not be recognized as a window at all and would also be seen as abstract.

in combination of the self combined with the external source material

I think all art is a matter of self or selves combined with external material (except some performance and conceptual art which doesn't materialize in the same way). Where to draw the line between what the artist brings to the table, especially in photography, and what the thing sourced or created brings to the table, I wouldn't know. I see art as a dialogue among artist, subject, artwork, viewer, and history with a bunch of possibility thrown in.

 

Is a straightforward and clearly defined painting of a vase that results from a vase in the world sitting before a painter in his studio ontologically not-abstract compared to a painting of a vase that's a result of the painter's imagination? And, while we notice a difference between those two sources, isn't it also the case that the imagined vase is at least in part a result of past ontologically non-abstract vases the painter saw.

 

If on the other hand, a painter paints shapes and forms not recognizable as an object is that then ontologically abstract enough? What if the shapes and forms and colors have been influenced by or sourced from ontologically non-abstract objects he's experienced in the real world?

 

You see how you can start getting yourself tongue-tied?

 

I think there's a reasonable case to be made, and many photographers would make it, that the building blocks of photography, when they are ontologically non-abstract objects seen and utilized more as raw material than as things to represent, can be called abstract.

 

If the photographer doesn't see it as a window but as light, shape, and reflection, then its ontological status really doesn't have much bearing. Art is not some isolated existential on and off switch. It's a fluid symbiosis of artist and whatever material he chooses to use.

 

In a sense, the photographer's dependence on and utilization of light could be considered more abstract to begin with than the painter's more concrete use of oils, canvas, and brushes.

 

I think not getting stuck on any one perspective may be the way to maintain key abstract thinking and achieve some degree of artistic expressiveness and creativity.

For me, the key would be to ask why you're asking the question, related to photography. Is there something you're trying to sort out for a project you're doing or are you thinking about different approaches that you might take toward making photos? Is there something you're exploring or struggling with? I'm confident this is more than simply a semantical matter of what we can call photos or subjects or art? Bouncing these ideas back and forth can be very inspiring and productive and, perhaps even more so, if there's a photographic context or goal for the question and conversation.

Thus can we say that a photograph is ontologically not-abstract but in combination of the self combined with the external source material (or non-material) (the subject?) it can become abstract?

 

And what about the connection to, and communication with, the beholder? How does the author manage these?

 

Is it an abstract and or is it communicating an abstract.

The less I see a representation of the object the more I react to the piece as I do to music. A good abstract artwork like a good piece of music can lead me to where the creator intended. Photos are more limited than a piece of music but can sometimes be be very good at exploring and evoking abstracts like emotions, concepts. Art is just a way to communicate. And as with verbal communication of the abstract it is challenging to be effective with a limited time & space. Even more challenging with flat artwork. Sometimes it’s in what the music or photograph conveys.

The front end object in photography may not be abstract but the final image well may be.

Photographs are incapable of showing reality.

The person or place is being "depicted".

Photographs are incapable of showing reality.

Bad news, Sanford. Reality is also incapable of showing reality. The eyes are limited, perspectives are variable, understanding is incomplete, appearance is imperfect.

 

Oh, well, stuck with being human again.

Or are they all the time a rather down-to-earth portrayal of reality?

 

As one who dabbles in abstract photos, I believe that abstraction is a matter of degree. On the flip side,so-called representational photos may include abstract elements.

@michaellinder

For the sake of clarity: it’s not about abstract photos, but about photos that convey abstract messages.

To me, confining something within a frame is the first level of abstraction. In the real world, the object (whatever it might be) has relations with other things in the frame, plus million other things around it. Isolating all that and showing the object in a subset of it’s environment kind of places the viewer to imagine the rest of it, …. or not - that in itself is an abstraction, although no different than other forms of 2D art. However what makes photography unique is that even with such a seemingly straightforward (tangible?) mapping between a scene and it’s photo, a whole lot of abstraction is possible, without the involvement of painter’s brushes.

To me, confining something within a frame is the first level of abstraction.

Really nice insight.

it’s not about abstract photos, but about photos that convey abstract messages.

Here's an interesting twist to that. Photos that convey abstract messages can be, sometimes, boringly mundane and literal in their portrayals. So that the abstract message of love, for example, can be conveyed by a person wearing a tee-shirt with the word "love" emblazoned on it. Or slightly less literally but no less expectedly by a couple embracing.

 

Where my interest and feelings tend to be piqued is when the abstract message is approached more abstractly. As opposed to love being represented, it can be empathetically alluded to, perhaps more poetry than prose. Rather than portraying a concrete imitation of love or a loving moment, one might allow a kind of kinetic outpouring of some of the qualities and facets of love. A photographer might approach it by asking not what love looks like but what it feels like and then expressing those feelings with the kinds of shapes, colors, light, lines, shadows, textures, layers, depth, focus that those feelings take him to. It is to convey or express the message through connotation rather than denotation, through insinuation rather than reference.

For me, the key would be to ask why you're asking the question, related to photography. Is there something you're trying to sort out for a project you're doing or are you thinking about different approaches that you might take toward making photos? Is there something you're exploring or struggling with? I'm confident this is more than simply a semantical matter of what we can call photos or subjects or art? Bouncing these ideas back and forth can be very inspiring and productive and, perhaps even more so, if there's a photographic context or goal for the question and conversation.

You are right, there is something I am trying to sort out.

 

Since last time I was here I have realised - studying, thinking, watching a lot of works, writing - that to me photographs must show sense. Obviously everybody else may have different opinions and preferences, but photographing without an idea of sense in mind is no option for me. That also holds true for the photos I want to watch in that I don’t want to see generic work.

 

In this line I have tried to shift my work towards photographs that try to speak out what I see, feel, perceive. In most cases this departed from the single picture and I have tried to produce sets of images that show my layered, complex perception of the reality I portray.

 

I have not done this just by myself but have sought feedback in open settings and had to realise that I may think that I express a certain concept by my photographs but that’s just me who thinks this. In most cases I find it very hard to show my layered, complex perception of reality, which requires abstraction from the immediately perceivable depiction of the subject.

 

Maybe my limit, maybe the medium is, as you say, essentially literal.

This subject can be debated "ad nauseum" , without ariving at a definitive answer.

The Artist uses his media , paint , brushes , charcoal or whatever to depict an image as He or She sees it in their own head.

The Photographer using Camera , Photoshop or its Clones does exactly the same thing.

As no two people will ever "see" such a "depicted" image in the same way , these images made by both Artist or Photographer can be considered as "abstract" images.

I am neither an Artist or a good Photographer , so take my answer as you will :).

Cheers.