Discussion in 'Abstract' started by Jon Eckman, Feb 18, 2018.
Nikkor AF-S 85 G
Face of Mendenhall Glacier, Alaska, 1976
Andy, Hector both great shots. Does anyone else think they would have been even better if they’d been cropped to achieve a higher level of abstraction?
I actually don't think so. I think both give just the right amount of context to allow for a "real-world" take but with a sense of the kind of abstraction that can be found in nature and that can be conveyed by a keen eye behind the camera. That being said, perhaps they wouldn't be considered "abstract" in the purest sense and a textbook might reject them for having too much connection to the real world. There would certainly be sections of each that would make for interesting, more "purely" abstract images. I'm not questioning that. But, as photos not necessarily trying to fit into the purity of a specific definition of "abstract", I'd say they both work well as they are and might very well lose something as photos without the sense of reality. While I like a lot of the more purely abstract painters' work (Kandinsky, Pollock, Mondrian), when it comes to photography I often appreciate finding the abstractions presented in the context of the real world, since photography is so dependent on a camera being pointed at the real world for its raw materials.
[By the way, Norman, I know you base your opinion on textbook definitions but rather on your sense of aesthetics. And I can certainly see and understand where you're coming from. I just see the photos somewhat differently. Simply a matter of taste.]
Sorry, that should have read "I know you DON'T base your opinion on textbook definitions . . ."
Separate names with a comma.