The Nature of Abstract Photography

<p>Since discovering that I had a propensity to create abstract photographs, I have reflected on the nature of such photographs from time to time. Initially this was motivated by a critique of one of my photos, saying basically that it was interesting from the standpoint of graphic design, but had little to do with photography. </p>

<p>Admittedly, I sometimes create abstracts primarily by playing with geometry and color. Although these photos began as having identifiable subjects, the net result is the disappearance of such subjects. My other methodology involves modifying the appearance of an identifiable subject and/or the context of the photograph. In such an instance, the subject usually remains identifiable.</p>

<p>Regardless, my aim is to encourage a viewer, if not to force a viewer, to suspend the use of ordinary categories by which subjects are identified and to view the photograph from a totally different point of view. That, in a nutshell, is my take on the nature of abstract photography.</p>

<p>Your thoughts, please . . . ?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Do you have a particular point of view from which you want the observer to consider the image? When a photograph is sufficiently detached from the context of its origins, and must stand alone (sans commentary from the photographer, and perhaps without the benefit of being seen in a larger exhibit that constructs a purpose, or world view, or other context), I find that true abstractions stop being communication, and serve instead as a personal catalyst for the viewer's own musings. <br /><br />Of course, most abstractions aren't seen in that much of a vacuum. But I think it would help if you discussed the manner in which you expect your audience to encounter the images.</p>

<p>Like Matt, I am also left with a question, though a different one. Would you feel comfortable sharing the link to the critique of the photo you mention? It's hard to address the issue in the abstract (forgive the pun). If I had a photo before me, I could say something more about the "graphic design" comment and how the photo struck me. I also like Matt's probing question. (Matt, I don't agree that true abstractions stop being communication although I do agree that a lot is left up to the viewer.)</p>

<p>As far as a general answer to the "is it a photo" question, people seem to have an investment in categorizing things: this piece is a work of art, that one isn't, this is a photograph, that's not, he's a liberal, she's a conservative, etc. To me, though I've played the game myself, more important is what's happening internally in the picture and not where I'd place it in some list of categories.</p>

<p>I certainly have seen abstracts that I consider photographs and don't have to think twice about it. I've seen other abstract photographs where graphic design elements seem more prominent and are more the <em>raison d'etre</em> of the photograph, but I have no problem calling them photographs.</p>

<p>My own feelings about and reaction to the abstract might well be affected by how the abstract was accomplished. Some might make actual collages, some "straight" photos look like collages, some are shots of parts of the "real" world that, when isolated in the frame, look abstract. Some are shots that might be recognizable except for the camera or motion blur that's utilized to make the scene unrecognizable. Some are post-processed into abstracts. There are overlaps and sometimes it's hard to tell what's what and sometimes it's more clear how the abstract came about. They can feel very differently to the viewer. Man Ray's abstracts and Jackson Pollock's abstracts are very different animals.</p>

<p>Abstract is a type of art just as landscape, nude and portrait. It can be pursued using different mediums such as painting, sculpture or photography. If your are abstracts are done with photographic means, then they are photographs. I have a real problem when people start saying that an abstract, landscape or nude is not a photograph just because it does not fit into some narrow, preconceived notion of what a photograph should look like. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Matt and Fred: I have no particular point of view " . . . from which want the observer to consider the image." To me, this is the attraction of abstract photography. The photographer has no agenda by which to try to influence the viewer. Instead, the viewer is free to impose his/her own point of view on a photograph. One viewer sees the glass as half-empty, while the other sees it as half-full. I think this has to do with the distiction between seeing and seeing as.</p>

<p>Fred: You are absolutely correct. By looking at abstracts other than mine on PN, I've seen that there is a variety of techniques by which these photographs are created. (By the way, it will take more time than I have available right now to locate the specific photograph to which I alluded. However, I will post the link to one which I think is of the same genre.)</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/9837935</p>

 

<p>Michael-</p>

<p>You probably have done enough abstract images to know that the successful ones while not figurative or representational must have the same elements of composition that contribute to works in which the subject matter is identifiable. These include the harmony and discordance of colours, shapes, forms, spaces, light and dark, symmetry and assymetry, equilibrium of masses, contrasts of textures, lines, etc., not to mention the important emotional use of these elements or combinations</p>

<p>Many photos called abstracts are far from fulfilling those conditions and end up being unidentifiable in that sense or simply "interesting". The same situation applies in abstract art (painting, sculpture). Abstracts of great power are a daunting task, especially for the photographer who must work in a medium with less degrees of freedom than the artist-painter.</p>

<p>I also think that if the abstract photograph leads someone to wonder how it was made through the use of a camera and lens or processing, I think it loses much of its value. In an analogous manner, who cares whether the painter mixed varnish and oils and acrylics and chalk in making his or her image, and in what order? It's what the image conveys that is important. When you get hung up on that it often means that there is not enough in the power of the image itself to carry it. Or it is simply a very "technical" image. Again, the composition, emotion, feeling of the image are just as important in an abstract image (photo, painting) as in a figurative or semi-figurative one, and probably more so, given the challenges of abstract art.</p>

<p><em>"saying basically that it was interesting from the standpoint of graphic design, but had little to do with photography."</em></p>

<p><strong>Michael</strong>, I know it might have been impossible to find his critique and thanks for linking to your photo. I wanted to read how his critique was worded and how he characterized your photo. It's one thing to suggest it's simply not a photo. It's another to say that it has little to do with photography. And it would be another to say it has a graphic design feel.</p>

<p>Were I describing it, I'd say the latter. I think it does have a very graphic feel. That in itself is not at all a judgment, just an assessment. I wouldn't obsess about categorizing it as photograph or graphic arts. It wouldn't matter to me. Since it started out with a camera, I'd lean toward calling it a photograph.</p>

<p>I doubt Gordon will mind if I link to <a href="../photo/9281092">one of his photos</a>.</p>

<p>Gordon described his work in this way: "I . . . find the term "Abstract Photographer " an uneasy fit. . . . I am inclined to see abstracts as being images stripped of context , where line and colour are all that remains, however I regularly see the term used to encompass images with ample context." Someone else added that Gordon's images remain visibly rooted in reality. Gordon's image seem to me less graphic than yours. (Again, not a judgment.) More than the connection to reality, I think the depth of the image, the layering, which gives it a three-dimensional quality, makes it less graphic. I'd say yours is more abstract.</p>

<p>My photo of <a href="../photo/9961353&size=lg">Mission Creek</a> was processed intentionally in a flat, wood-cut like style. I was influenced by the Japanese photographer <a href="http://www.google.com/images?client=safari&rls=en&q=moriyama+images&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=j-jHS6KpIoOqtgPb65X1BA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQsAQwAA">Moriyama</a>, who did a lot of this sort of thing. It's a case where we remain quite rooted in reality. We can tell what the scene is, etc. But, to me, it has a more graphic feel, for instance, than Gordon's photo and perhaps it does not go quite as far in the graphic direction as yours.</p>

<p>We're talking about "graphic design" and I think your abstract work deals with design quite a lot. You suggest in your opening post that the identification of subject is not a concern and that the viewer will be free to adopt a different point of view. Since narrative is not directed and may not even be suggested to some, "design" may be a significant element in your work. It seems a big part of it to me. Design can be an important element in many kinds of photographs, even narrative ones. But in an abstract, design often comes to the fore.</p>

<p>Addendum: I want to add that I linked to my photo to make a point about "graphic" and not about abstract. It's not abstract, just graphic.</p>

<p>There are so many people who are more interested in what a photograph can't be than what it can be. Their definitions of what constitutes a photograph are usually based upon self-imposed limitations. My advice is to ignore them completely as they usually have little, if any, basis for the comment. As I'm fond of saying - "Self limitation by self definition."</p>

<p>I like abstract work as it is about a different facet of what a photograph or photographically generated image can be. I have to wonder what a person who makes that kind of a statement would say about Man Ray, Aaron Siskind, or Bret Weston.</p>

<p>Attached is a photograph - yes, a photograph that is also abstract yet generated from a tangible object - a rail car in the siding at Ely, NV. Just keep doing whatever you want to do. Photography is about exploration and not being stuck in paradigms about constitutes a photograph.</p><div></div>

<p>It's fun to compare Fred's "Mission Creek" (could be a popular postcard) with Steve's "Rail Car" ( little postcard potential). Two very successful images, but poles apart.</p>

<p>For me their labels tell significant and perhaps unintended stories.</p>

<p>Fred's label would be useful to a tourist (like Japanese woodblock views of Fuji ) whereas Steve's is an unimportant, factual explanation (an abstract painter might just have given it a number, or a cryptic title)...</p>

<p>Because Fred's is first (IMO) a pretty scene, the label didn't matter much to me, is OK...it's fun that I know where Mission Creek is.</p>

<p>Contrast that to my response to Steve's LESS abstracted (not "abstract"), photographically 100% realistic image, which was hurt a bit when I read the label (or by my instant-delayed recognition of "what" I was seeing): although it's obviously paint on rusted metal my FIRST and instantaneous response was much stronger: the painted numbers first seemed teeth, dripping blood (white!) in a violent, beaten image. Silly, huh? But a moment later, the label reduced it a half notch to wonderful beauty in something immediately understood, more conventional.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I find that labels often "limit" responses to photographs, like Steve's " "Self limitation by self definition."</p>

<p>Seems to me that genuine "abstract" work, as opposed to graphic/decorative work, tends not to be labeled with "explanations."</p>

<p>Linked below is an image of the sidebar to Brooks Jensen's essay introducing a selection of his abstract photographs. [He wants you to think about what you do and don't understand and why.]<br>

<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/jensen_text.jpg">http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/jensen_text.jpg</a></p>

 

<p><em>"He wants you to think about what you do and don't understand and why."</em> - JH</p>

<p>Yes, that echos my point about labels.</p>

<p>Seeking "understanding" (ie. verbal interpretation) <em>one's attention is diverted from from one's first, most direct visual/emotional response</em>.</p>

<p>That's the same as finding "meaning" in the non-verbal: "meaning" is inherently a second or third level removed from first response, which makes it additionally distant from the work-as-created.</p>

<p>What are we to "understand" when we enjoy a violin solo? How close is that "understanding" to the essence of the music?</p>

<p>I'm always amazed at the temerity in purporting to verbally "understand" what an author or photographer or dancer "meant" by the work. </p>

<p>Referring to Steve's image, I tried to describe <em>my response</em> to the image. I didn't claim to "understand" until I noticed the label ("rail car"), and that secondary "understanding" took a little joy from my first experience of the image. </p>

<p>Some photographers find the responses of strangers to their work, especially "artistically" inarticulate and photographically unsophisticated strangers, enlightening.</p>

<p>(fwiw to seek random responses from a dozen random strangers, on the street, was one of Minor White's formal instructional assignments..I was given it by one of his students...wasn't fun at the time).</p>

 

<p><strong>John</strong>, I can relate to your experience of Steve's title and my title. Though we have both provided identifying labels, because his is abstract (though not 100%), I think his title does work a bit differently. I think the nuance you bring out in that first post is significant. I'd be curious to know Steve's reaction. I agree with you that my title in this instance (as in most cases for me) is a throwaway and also understand the little thrill you got because you know the place. I've thought it would make an interesting thread to discuss how much there is in photos that will never reach a universal audience but will reach a very select part of the audience similarly and how "special" a feeling it is when one knows one might be one of a select few "getting" something.</p>

<p>As for your last post, again I think you draw an important distinction between "response" and "understanding." We've talked before about the different kinds of reactions to a photo: emotional response, interpretation, etc. I'm with you in often thinking that interpretations can feel more imposed and initial emotional responses can feel more immediate and genuine. But I wonder if Steve might have wanted you to experience something like you experienced. An initial response followed by a change due to a certain revelation. That juxtaposition of experience itself could be a significant eye-opener.</p>

<p>We discussed Goya recently. Would his paintings be as rich if we were just responding initially to them and not going to a level of understanding the paintings' relationship to its culture and the events of history?</p>

<p>When folks interpret, that doesn't mean they let the interpretation impinge on their initial response to the photo. The interpretation may come much later and, without detracting from the initial response, the understanding may add quite a bit of depth to the continuing experience. As I think you've stated before, and I certainly find it to be the case, the experience of a photograph doesn't end when I leave the gallery.</p>

<p>Fred: I took a long, concentrated look at Gordon's photograph. (Thanks for the link.) Before going to the comments below, what I noticed was an interesting interplay of lines amidst various shades of brown. Interestingly, Gordon's own comment involved an identification of the subject of the photograph, despite the fact that Ton's comments did not even come close to discussing a subject.</p>

<p>Arthur: I agree that the viewer of a really good piece of art, whether photographic or otherwise, could care less about the manner by which it was produced. And I have no quarrel with applying usual photographic standards indeed do apply to abstracts as well as landscapes, portraits, street shots, etc. Did my original post even suggest otherwise?</p>

<p>Allen, Steve, John, and Julie: I too tend to feel that the only limits that are, or can be placed on a photographer are those of his/her own creativity. Fred put it well in drawing the distinction between abstract and graphic.</p>

<p>Whether an abstract photograph does not contain an identifiable subject at all, or whether the photographer has attempted in some way to alter that subject, to me the viewer is placed in a position of placing his/her interpretation above his/her initial response. (Thanks, Fred, for the elucidation on this point.)</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Michael</strong>, sure, except I don't come to the same conclusion as you do in your last paragraph. I think sometimes some viewers will place their interpretation above their initial response and I think sometimes some viewers will prefer and give priority to their initial response. Why or how do you come to the conclusion that abstracts will place the viewer in the position of prioritizing the interpretation?</p>

<p>I will, more often than not, react to abstracts more sensually than interpretively. I don't often wonder <em>what</em> I am looking at, as if making faces or animals out of cloud formations. I stay with the lines, shapes, colors, shadows, transparency, depth, layers as they are. I feel them. They express, often without the need for meaning.</p>

<p><em>"I too tend to feel that the only limits that are, or can be placed on a photographer are those of his/her own creativity." </em>- Michael L</p>

<p>that's not quite how I "feel" ... </p>

<p><strong>Photographers, like everyone else, are either/both limited and supercharged</strong> by their individual skills, aspirations, life experiences, education and social class, financial circumstances, and accidents such as biological gifts or curses. They are limited by bad luck and bolstered by good luck, foolishness or wisdom, fearlessness or cowardice. Their egos can drive them forward or cripple them.</p>

<p>"Creativity," if it's a real characteristic, is nothing by comparison. </p>

<p>Goya, Fred's reference point, or Picasso, were anomolies, "gifted" (or cursed), wildly lucky or unlucky, nearly deities. If you disagree with that, perhaps you'll agree that they more properly deserve their places in history than do "creative photographers" in general. I think we degrade big values (such as the notion of "creativity") by assigning them carelessly.</p>

<p>I know nothing about Goya's ego or labor, but Picasso was an obsessively HARD WORKER with a gigantic ego. He knew from the start that he was a superior person and that in addition to his gifts, he earned further superiority (a Calvanist-flavored point). </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>perhaps you'll agree that they more properly deserve their places in history than do "creative photographers" in general. I think we degrade big values (such as the notion of "creativity") by assigning them carelessly.but Picasso was an obsessively HARD WORKER with a gigantic ego. He knew from the start that he was a superior person and that in addition to his gifts, he earned further superiority (a Calvanist-flavored point).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't be so sure about that.<br>

<br /><br>

"I myself, since the advent of Cubism, have fed these fellows what they wanted and satisfied these critics with all the ridiculous ideas that have passed through my mind. The less they understood them, the more they admired me. Through amusing myself with all these absurd farces, I became celebrated, and very rapidly. For a painter, celebrity means sales and consequent affluence. Today, as you know, I am celebrated, I am rich. But when I am alone, I do not have the effrontery to consider myself an artist at all, not in the grand old meaning of the word: Giotto, Titian, Rembrandt, Goya were great painters. I am only a public clown - a mountebank. I have understood my time and have exploited the imbecility, the vanity, the greed of my contemporaries. It is a bitter confession, this confession of mine, more painful than it may seem. But at least and at last it does have the merit of being honest."<br />(Pablo Picasso, 1952)</p>

<p><strong>Phylo</strong>, here's my take on what artists often say, especially about themselves:</p>

<p>First of all, they can give us great insights into themselves through these words.</p>

<p>BUT . . .</p>

<p>There's a difference between honesty and accuracy. Picasso may have been extremely honest in this assessment but also might have been totally wrong.</p>

<p>Or he might have just been prone to self-effacement in his writings. Or he was down on himself that day, or in the mood to be disingenuously humble for some reason.</p>

<p>I always take artists' writings with a grain of salt. What they say about themselves is but one piece in a much larger puzzle. They can often be purposely evasive, preferring to pull written jokes on the world in an attempt not to be easily understood. For some, it may make their art of greater purpose than what they can say in words. Some simply don't have a good handle on themselves or a good facility with words despite being adept at their art.</p>

<p>Of course, as you do, I disagree with John's characterization of creative photographers. </p>

<p>Phylo, surely you've seen the films of Picasso at work, the descriptions of him by other painters and by writers, the evidence in correspondence that he had to work at humility to get down to Matisse's level ?</p>

<p>I think Picasso needed to flaunt his superiority over Matisse, hence their long and unequal "competiton." That he doubted his superiority was, IMO, BS, self aggrandizing posturing. Great men are just as likely to lie and self-aggrandize as small men.</p>

<p>That in 1952 he claimed (your quote) he didn't think himself superior was a comical posture, absurd on its face. And, from his painted jesters, he certainly did think himself a clown. <em>An equivalently great "artist" of the 20th century was James Joyce, who evidently thought Charlie Chaplin, a clown, might be a similarly great artist.</em></p>

<p>As to Picasso's doubt about his worthiness in "art," my view and probably his is that "art" is ephemeral , most significant when its achievement is failed. Art is valid as a goal, dubious as an achievement. It relates to religious ideas such as "muse" rather than to most actual work.</p>

 

<p>I see "muse" not as religious but as holistic. For me, it's more about reciprocity between me and the world than about something mystical or spiritual. One can look at the ancients as religious and one can look at them also as profoundly in touch with (intimate with) their natural surroundings. They had an adeptness at getting outside themselves (though not to the exclusion of themselves).</p>

<p>Fred, you evidently disagree with my thoughts on "creative" ... I obviously <em>didn't</em> express those thoughts in relation to photographers alone. There have always been plenty of dubiously "creative" writers and painters as well....</p>

<p>Here it what I said :</p>

<p><strong>"Photographers, like everyone else, are either/both limited and supercharged</strong> by their individual skills, aspirations, life experiences, education and social class, financial circumstances, and accidents such as biological gifts or curses. They are limited by bad luck and bolstered by good luck, foolishness or wisdom, fearlessness or cowardice. Their egos can drive them forward or cripple them.<br /> "Creativity," if it's a real characteristic, is nothing by comparison."</p>

<p><strong> Fred, where do we differ? </strong><br /> Am I not accepting enough of everyone's equality? Insufficient kumbayah? <br /> Do I attribute too much importance to observable accomplishment?</p>

<p>I like everything you said except "Creativity, if it's a real characteristic, is nothing by comparison."</p>

<p>No, I wasn't concerned that you were limiting your comments to creative photographers. I know you are an equal opportunity detractor of "creative." ;))))</p>

<p>All those things you mention are significant (skill, limits, life experience, accident, etc.) and I understand you to think they are not often emphasized enough here. I applaud you for emphasizing them and getting them into the dialogue because I think the discussions sometimes lose sight of them. In order to emphasize them and get them into the dialogue, however, I don't think they have to be elevated above with "creativity." I think all these qualities exist in tandem, reciprocally, and symbiotically. They can also exist with various tensions among them, but those tensions don't result in a hierarchy, IMO.</p>