Unmanipulated defined as abstract

I see traditional photography as the recording of reality through

the camera lens. How is it possible to define an unmanipulated

photograph as an "abstract"? I mean, I can understand the figurative

purpose of the definition, but it looks like a contraddictions in

terms to me. Can Anyone help me to better understand? Isn't there a

more appropriate definition?

Well, I'm in no way equipped with the intellectual tools to properly deal with the question, but here's how I see it. Think of a photo as a composition on a flat surface. You can look at this composition in terms of the reality it represents. You can also look at it in terms of the lines, shapes, colours that physically occupy this 2-dimensional space i.e. it's inherent form. It is possible, and in fact very easy, to take a photograph whose representation of reality is meaningless, indiscernable, or weak, but whose form in terms of pure compositional elements is very strong. This could be said to be an abstract photograph. Whether or not it is manipulated in post processing is irrelevent. Just my initial thoughts reading your question. All the best, Anton

Good enough for me, even though the terminology remains somewhat inadequate. Thanks for being practical. I tried to look up dictionaries for help, but I ended up with Surrealism. A bit over the line I think!!

"How is it possible to define an unmanipulated photograph as an "abstract"?"

 

From dictionary.com:

 

"Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept."<div></div>

Here you are, instant unmanipulated abstract, shot five minutes ago....<div></div>

<i>I see traditional photography as the recording of reality through the camera lens.</i><p>

 

You're off to a shaky start there. I'd recommend a) reading what "traditional" photographers like Laughlin and Avedon say about photography, b) looking at what "traditional photographers" have had to manipulate to get their prints, and c) checking the dictionary while you're at it. Once you understand that there's a fundamental fallacy in that statement, the rest is fairly meaningless.

Photography is definitely a manipulated activity. The word 'manipulate' comes from the Greek 'mano', or 'by the hand of man'. The mere act of deciding on a composition - editing out all the rest of reality from being recorded on film - is an act of manipulation. You can also argue that the mere act or presence of being a photographer is also, on a certain social level, an act of manipulation.

 

The two dimensional image, often in monochrome, does not come close to resembling reality. Really, the photographic negative, and its corresponding print, only resemble reality in the context that various cultures have learned to make mental analogies between lines, shades, tones and colors on two dimensional surfaces, and image fields in 3-space. Historically, photography originated as an offshoot of romanticist painting. But indigenous cultures, when confronted by a photographic print for the first time, often fail to even see an image present, or are unable to correspond the image with reality.

 

So, if the photograph isn't reality, then is it an abstraction? First, a photographic image has its own specific, technically literal context, its own "internal" reality. After all, its a map of an image field, projected onto a light-sensitive surface, and then perhaps additionally processed via some process with particular properties. So the finished print - the photograph - is literally nothing more than a document of its own technical history.

 

Second, the initiating activity in this history has an analogy to some reality external to the photograph: the image field itself, originating from some physical reality.

 

So, I differ on your choice of the word "abstract". The manipulation that all photography performs operates on the level of analogy. As a culture highly steeped in the language of the visual, we often fail to perceive this most basic of photography's attributes.

 

Its a highly manipulative activity, offering images often so close to reality that we are mesmerized, taken in to believe that the photograph IS reality, rather than mere analog. And that is its true power.

<i>How is it possible to define an unmanipulated photograph as an "abstract"?</i><P>

I think Jeff hit the nail squarely on the head. If you can comfortably define a photograph as "unmanipulated," then you shouldn't have any trouble coming up with whatever arbitrary standards are necessary to define an "unmanipulated photograph" as abstract.

A view of one side of a rubik's cube is an abstraction of it, right? It is simply a

'projection' in many senses of the word. We get no idea of the whole from

this (though there are better examples to draw from). But it tells us nothing

of the experience of solving the puzzle, say - or even help us understand

there IS a puzzle there. Likewise a photograph is an abstraction, or a

'taking' , in the purest sense of the word from the 'real'. It is an inadequate

representation. Especially if you start factoring in the extremely complex

ways in which human perception- visual or otherwise - can filter the

environment. How is any photograph NOT abstract?

 

Out of curiosity - what context did you see this in? Inquiring minds want to

know.

Thank you gentlemen. My hat off.

 

As Jonathan asked, the contest took off from a much more "tecnical" consideration and was stimulated by PN categories.

Neverthless you took the time to range from plain practical cases (what I was expecting) to extensive lectures.

 

 

While thanking you all once againg for your enlightening contributions, I must confess I'm now more confused than ever before:

from what I read, should I assume that photojournalism is an abstract activity? ("How is any photograph NOT abstract?") or that photographic evidence in a Court case is just trash paper? ("Its a highly manipulative activity, offering images often so close to reality that we are mesmerized, taken in to believe that the photograph IS reality, rather than mere analog. And that is its true power."). Is there a border line? a simple way out?

<i>should I assume that photojournalism is an abstract activity? ("How is any photograph NOT abstract?") or that photographic evidence in a Court case is just trash paper?</i><P>

In photojournalism, the photojournalist presents his interpretation of the scene, but the story he tells can be altered dramatically by simply pointing the camera a different direction or snapping the photo a minute earlier or later. As evidence, photographs are used to support the testimony of witnesses (even if it's a crime-scene photographer). Do a web search on photographic evidence--there are some interesting sites and articles on the topic. In both cases, the "truth" of the images and how well they document reality depends on the fairness of the person taking the photos.

Sorry Mike, it's not enough. pictures still document reality (the way you put it). Even the laws of a Nation are interpreted, but they are Laws.

 

About the photograph on a crime scene, a photograph is admitted as evidence if it is relevant, probative and authanicated by the photographer or any other testimony (U.S.A. Federal Rules of Evidence). It is the person who supports the photograph, not the contrary.

In any case, people are led to think that a photograph on a Newspaper represents "reality". Are we doubting about it?

A photograph can provide a two-dimensional representation of what a small part of reality looked like at particular time (though even photos that receive no post-exposure manipulation can provide a very distorted view--one that would have little resemblance to what a casual observer at the scene would witness). The choices made by the photographer about which bit to show and the slice of time that is shown are profound manipulations of <b>reality</b>. As Jeff noted already, "traditional" photography was filled with manipulations made before, during, and after the actual exposure. Every use of "unmanipulated photographs" I've seen on photo.net is really refering to "photos that are only manipulated in ways which I seldom think about and which I am comfortable with."

Mike, I think we are again sliding into the tracherous mine field of manipulation/not manipulation. The question I meant was manly on the dualism of "light recording" (etymology of photograph) by means of a non-intelligent mechanical/digital device and "a concept or idea not associated with any specific instance" (one definition of abstract). I got enough food for thoughts from you and this precious community. Now I'll go shooting Abstracts ;-) Thanks again.

"Is there a border line? a simple way out?"

 

Yeah; stop worring about it:) Some folks over intellectualize about things when life's really a simple matter.

 

We're all a part of the Universe, we're not an abstract unless for ego reason one demands to be an abstract; self-awareness, self-importance. Nor is a photo anything more then a representation of what was before the lense at the time and moment of the capture's creation, a seperation of the real. Is an image captured by a blind person anymore pure than an image captured by a notable? Interpretations, can be anything one wants them to be.

 

(Shrug)

 

In the above light, based upon other's comments here, everything we see, reasonably, is an abstract as no two people see the same thing, no matter how hard they try for a myriad of reasons. So in the end, don't worry about the minutia unless "reasonably" necessary.

 

"How is it possible to define an unmanipulated photograph as an "abstract"?"

 

In the context of your question, how do you see the term "abstract?" And in the context of your question, how is it possible to not declare "any" image an "abstract" of the real? And when does life stop being real and become an abstraction? Does the mear act of making note of something, visually, qualify as an abstraction of the real? If not an abstraction, what is real? Is a photo really an abstract of a personal vision's abstraction of an abstract of the whole? How segmented (minutia) does one wish to be with the abstraction process? Are the sands of the beach, really just an abstraction of the Universe's processes? Is the impending super-nova of our Sun an abstraction of the solar system's processes? When the Universe blinks out of existence, what part of reality, abstraction, will that moment play in the continuum?:)

I recently posed a couple of photographs as abstract that were unmanipulated. My own interpretation of abstract is when the actual subject is not obvious from viewing the image. The <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3459908">image here</a> is an example. It is of ripples of sand on Daytona Beach but that is not apparent from an initial view so I consider it an abstract, unmanipulated photograph.

If all photographs are abstracts because they're all selected parts of a whole, than it becomes meaningless in terms of separating one group of images from another. Sometimes categorizing images is a reasonable thing to do for purposes of description. Would you agree that my style of photography is generally more abstract than Jeff's or Mike's?

 

One definition holds that a photographic abstract is a visual extraction that renders the original subject as unrecognizable. The problem with that definition is that the viewer's familiarity with the original subject gets too much weight. I had no trouble immediately identifying all three uploads in this thread. A better definition is simply that line, shape, texture, color, etc. generate an emotional response before the subject is recognized. Even then, most of us recognize the slot canyon shots immediately, but those that don't show the canyon floor are good examples of abstracts.<div></div>

Are we talking about the difference between a photograph and an image?

 

The image is recorded on the film or sensor, then its transfered to paper or a

monitor. How much more abstract can you get? There's dust, you can't make

out detail in the shadows, the colors are wrong.

 

When I put my fingers in the pie and start manipulating the image to match

my own perception of "reality", as best I can, it starts becoming a photograph.

Still might be abstract to another set of eyes. As it becomes more "real" to me,

it might be less "real" for somebody else.

 

Give two people the same camera with the same settings, the same film, the

same subject and have them shoot from the same place at the same time, you

will still get two very different images. That's abstract enough for me!

Would you say the same thing about two painters?

 

Dust, differences in shadow detail, and color cast are peripheral issues.

 

What invariably happens in this discussion is that people feel free to make up their own definitions of words for the sole purpose of making the words meaningless.

 

Do a search on Kandinsky.

In the painting world, there are several terms which are almost always confused and create alot of headaches in the "labels" department. I dont hear photographers using them much. These terms are: Abstract, Abstraction, and Artifice.

 

As defined above, Abstract simply means, not an object. You have "objective" image which is any image that has the intention of respresenting an identifiable object. A cat, a person, a building. Two common terms used to describe Abstract art are: Nonobjective and Nonrespresentational. However in the realm of photography, unlike painting, the photograph is almost always some identifiable object.... but sometimes the photographer is not interested in the Ojbect itself, but the way a shadow makes an interesting bizarre shape... or the way a texture recedes in space.... or dizzy spinning lights in a long exposure at night... These kinds of photographs I would call Abstract, because they are not concerned with telling any kind of story or documenting a recognizable object... they are simply; line, value, shape, color and movement.

 

Then theirs Abstraction: Abstraction is a verb, it is an action an artist DOES, which simply means... altering the identity of an object to make it unrecognizable, or to appear like another object. A Painter may use Abstraction to transform a specific landscape into a fantastical world, or to make flowers appear erotic. A photographer may shoot a building at an odd angle to make it appear like an alien space craft, or a green pepper so that it resembles human flesh. This is Abstraction.... the object is still there... but through an act of cunning on the part of the artist, you are being led to beleive that it is something else entirely... The act of Abstraction may distort the object to the point of being totally nonrepresentaional thus rendering it an Abstract Image. Not all Abstractions become an Abstract Image.

 

Lastly, there is Artifice. All ART is Artifice. Artifice simply means invention. Artifice is when an artist manipulates reality to create an image which he wants. If the Artifice goes far enough and the objects become distorted or disfigured, then it is Abstraction. Not all Artifice is technically Abstraction. Painters may "forget" to paint your warts... or move a tree over a couple of inches to make a better composition. A photographer may go over and pick up a piece of trash from a scene, or direct a model to do something, or use "artificial" lighting to make a scene more dramatic. The act of framing a composition is an act of Artifice. How many times have you moved a little to the right to remove an undesireable element from your feild of veiw? How many times have you cropped an image to get a desired result? Or adjusted the Levels in Photoshop! These are all acts of artifice. Selective Focus, Contrast Filters and Wide-angle lenses... and Zoom lenses... and Black and White film! None of these things have anything to do with honestly "documenting" what we see in front of us! They are all an invention, an Artificial Art Artifice created by an Artist!

1) Kudos to Mike for this: "A photograph can provide a

two-dimensional representation of what a small part of reality

looked like at particular time (though even photos that receive no

post-exposure manipulation can provide a very distorted

view--one that would have little resemblance to what a casual

observer at the scene would witness). The choices made by the

photographer about which bit to show and the slice of time that

is shown are profound manipulations of reality."

 

2) While I agree with this, I haven't found in this thread any clear

definition of what's "reality" exactly - and that's not a small bit... I

suppose there are as many definitions of reality as people on

Earth.

 

3) I personally like to say that we shoot ESSENCES of reality (i.e.

personal interpretations of some truth we see about the subject

at hand), and not reality itself - this idea being very closely

connected with Mike's post I copied here. Or if you like, we never

take a picture of a person, because it's always more descript

than that: it's always "a person with" this or that, or "a person

doing" this or that, which means that the picture is then a

comment on this action, etc.

 

A (philosophically) good movie on this subject would be

"Photographing fairies" - if you can get passed the overly

romantic atmosphere of this movie.

 

4) Patrick Dhumpsey and carl Root's definitions are clear and

should imo be at the top of this thread, immediately after the

fairly unclear question that started this thread. Then the entire

thread would perhaps not be loaded with so many different

definitions of the word "abstract", that the discourse becomes

close to meaningless.

 

5) The etymology of the word "abstract", which Patrick refered to

indirectly, is worth a little note too. Abstract comes from the latin

verb "ab-" + "traho, trahere". Litterally, the prefix "ab-" means "out

of", while "trahere" means "to pull". An abstraction is therefore, at

origin, the action of PULLING OUT OF WHAT EXISTS -

SOMETHING ELSE. The etymology is so broad that it actually

includes indeed all manipulations and all picture-taking.

Reality?

 

From dictionary.com.

 

Reality: The quality or state of being actual or true.

 

These concepts are not enigmatic.

here's maybe one

http://www.phototakers.com/forum/ftopic26946.html?highlight=

 

and here too

 

http://thephotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1992

Thomas reallity is a bit more than enigmatic .... it's just impossible .. except in a dictionary

"...reallity is a bit more than enigmatic .... "

 

Huh!

 

There's nothing enigmatic about life. There's BS and then there's truth/reality but no enigma.