Discussion in 'Abstract' started by sanford, Nov 30, 2016.
Archaeological remains usually had their last "use" as "trash"
Here flint-knapping debris at a quarry site.
What is abstract about a picture of trash in a thread titled "Trash"?
How about "organic trash".
Not all abstraction is "abstract expressionism" - real objects can form abstract forms.
I have seen many natural and cultural forms treated as 'abstraction'.
By the bye, organic materials are technically (at least in the New England legal sense) garbage, not trash.
all photos are abstract as they all have a degree of independence from visual references in the world.
Gets back to Julie's question. I'm curious also. What is abstract about bundled cardboard? And, why is it trash? Around here, that's recycling.
As naffington says, it's not the cardboard or the debitage that is abstract, it's the PHOTO that is abstract in its patterns and form.
I read naffington's post. I'm curious as to what Sanford saw as abstract in a bundle of cardboard. By naffington's view, the forum will is a free for all, with anything being considered abstract because "all photos are abstract". Then, under that criteria, what's the point of having a forum?
It comes down to cropping. This is a photograph...
...and this is an abstract photograph.
both trash btw
"It comes down to cropping." Everything does. That narrows your definition down to everything.
Sanford, thank you. I understand your POV better, though I do not see anything abstract in the cardboard, no matter how you slice, dice, or crop. But, it's not mine to see.
1. "It comes down to cropping."
2. Your trash picture is not cropped.
3. Therefore it is not an abstract.
Is that what you're saying "Exactly!" to?
I guess what I mean is "photo abstract" cannot be defined, its all opinion. BTW the trash photo was cropped quite a bit.
I've always sort of figured (loosely at best) that abstraction occurs when the point of an image is not its literal content, whether or not the literal content can be discerned. Of course as soon as I say that I can imagine about as many ways to poke holes in it as there are to poke holes in this trash bag, which I am going to maintain is abstract even though it is un-enhanced and uncropped, and could even be accused of being uninspired. If you feel argumentative, though, we could probably get up a good one starting with the question, if you fill a bag with bags, which is the trash and which is the bag?
By naffington's view, the forum will is a free for all, with anything being considered abstract because "all photos are abstract". Then, under that criteria, what's the point of having a forum?
the point of this forum? to show some photos are more abstract than others.
I thought it was so much more, and based on what I've seen in other threads, it is. I don't see the forum as a free for all. If you want to post "trash", then go right ahead. Generally I put my trash in the circular file, aka the trash can. But, thanks for answering the question. I think your premise if off, but as stated before, it's not mine to see.
do you honestly think your Monday in Nature is a true reflection of the beauty of Nature?
This should have been easier but it turns out Abstract Photography has more "rules" than Street Photography. Personally, I like my abstracts to leave no doubt a camera was used.
spot on, Sanford.
For me the cardboard picture can serve you all.
If you want to see cardboard, you are served. If you want to see garbage, you are served too. If you want to see an illustration of recycling, likewise...
However, if you try to look (stare) at the image as a merging of colours, forms, textures, it begins to appear as abstract.
Personally: first I see cardboard, but then I see abstraction.
A little like, what it takes to fully appreciate the nature of many lyric expressionist paintings. First you see painted lines, forms and colour spaces, and then you might see an abstract painting.
norman, I'm not taking your bait. You clearly didn't understand my post, as clear as it is.
I can see a certain abstract quality to the first picture here, but it does take some time. It's almost like saying a word over and over until it becomes nonsense. I think it's hard to separate the color and form from the specific and sharp subject, but eventually one can. I can remember a long long ago art teacher one of whose favorite words was "plasticity." The bags are probably better than the boxes for that, but one of his other favorite points was that as soon as you put an image on a flat plane, you have performed one act of abstraction whatever your ultimate intention is.
As far as Mondays in Nature are concerned, nowhere in that title, nor in the history of that series, do I see a requirement that beauty or truth be involved, nor any delineation of what a person's attitude toward any part of the subject should be. We may aim for different things there, but the only rule is for the subject.
Eh on the cardboard photo at first, word over and over like Matthew says, but then I just looked again at it as composition, and suddenly I spit on my snap judgements. But fun discussion.
Separate names with a comma.