W/NW, Abstract in a Supporting Role

<p>For this thread, I thought we could share photos that we don't necessarily consider abstract per se but that use a strong (or subtle, or strong and subtle and/or somewhere in-between) element that, taken out of the context of the more literal photo would likely be seen as abstract. I have so far in my photography found that abstraction used as an expressive and supportive device has come more naturally to me than doing an abstract itself. It's not that I plan abstractions all the time (though I have on occasion) but I think my eye often stops on such abstract elements and I find they can make for interesting environments, backdrops, and sub-elements in photos. Would love to see your photos and hear any thoughts you have about this kind of use of abstraction.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10873930-lg.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="518" /></p>

<p> </p>

that's a great photo but i can't see any abstract elements (apart from the photo itself)

<p>I can certainly see the abstract elements in this photo. Anything but the person is abstract for me, with a break of "Danger High Voltage" sign. Like it.<br>

However, for me there is an unbalance in the photo, with the man taking up the full attention and the rest becoming very secondary (background) and not worthy of the eyes of the viewer. I would have worked on alternative presentations with the guy/background competing. <br>

Maybe I'm just too much attracted to the force of abstracts in the sense, that they create non-representation and invites for - inspiration, which goes beyond what pure view of the known reality provides to the viewer. </p>

<p>A must less strong photo than Fred's above, but an illustration of more competition between the abstract and the representative.</p><div></div>

a.shadows are shadows. nothing abstract about shadows whatsoever.

<p>

b. <i> However, for me there is an unbalance in the photo, with the man taking up the full attention and the rest becoming

very secondary (background) and not worthy of the eyes of the viewer.</i>

<p>

nonsense. the background makes the photo. it turns a man into a beast <i>(roars like a lion)</i>

Anders, your photo is just as good. <i>i hate all this false modesty </i>

<blockquote>

<p>the background makes the photo. it turns a man into a beast <em>(roars like a lion)</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Norman, first, thanks for your thoughts about the photo. Second, though I differ, I can understand why you think the shadows are not an abstract element. Not sure if this is why, but I think an argument can be made that we recognize them for what they are, shadows, and therefore they are not abstract.</p>

<p>I wonder, though. For me, the shadows wouldn't be acting abstractly if your reaction had been something along the lines of, "wow, a hot day and this guy is cooling himself under the shade of a tree." Or, "I like the contrast of what seems to be the hot sun and the cool shade." But, I think the fact that the background, for you, turns the man into a beast likely means those shadows do operate abstractly for you. Rather than representing shadows or things normally associated with shadows (like providing shade or in the absence of a person their shadow on the wall often literally represents that a person is there), they've worked on you metaphorically. That suggests to me that they've indicated a non-representational bigger idea. Again, I still understand the level at which you are claiming they are not abstracts, and I wouldn't deny you that way of understanding them. I'm just offering you my own reasons (including some of the very ways the shadows worked for you, as they do for me) for considering the shadows an abstract element.</p>

<p>Anders, I usually see my photos several different ways before deciding on my approach. Sometimes, there's no question and I only see one possibility and go with it. On this photo, I did see other possibilities but gravitated toward this. I agree with Norman and will just say that I got just the dynamic I wanted between Michael and the background here. It's interesting that you see the shadows as being so secondary. I don't see them that way.</p>

<p>Interestingly, I think your photo, which I agree is rather strong, can serve as a bit of a Rorschach test. Certainly the environment which, like you, I see the abstract nature of, dominates, dwarfing the figure. But I think this kind of scale often can actually bring more attention to the figure, which is the more literal part of your photo, the non-abstract presence. Once I find him, there's a perspective from which he becomes the strongest element in the photo and it's hard to let that go. But the cool thing about a Rorschach test is that you can go back and forth a lot, once you've seen it more than one way. So I can see your figure dominantly, I can see the environment dominantly, or I can see them as competing.</p>

<p>In my photo, I wasn't aware of or looking for that kind of dynamic. If I see the strength of your photo in this realm of competition, I see the man and environment in my photo as symbiotic.</p>

<p>Written on the Rest Room Wall, Santa Cruz</p><div></div>

<p>Norman, "nonsense. the background makes the photo. it turns a man into a beast <em>(roars like a lion)</em>" has got to be the best single PNet line i've read in a while, and I agree completely.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm not sure I agree that shadows cannot be abstract elements, despite being recognizable as "shadows". Imagine an artist who uses light to cast shadows of an abstract form he created. Is the form abstract but the shadow of it not?</p>

<p>This is kind of a slippery slope (or a rabbit hole), I suppose. Clouds are omnipresent but we don't ususally think of them as abstract. Water reflections even if we can be pretty sure of what is reflected?</p>

<p>Clouds are not abstract</p><div></div>

<p>reflections of leaves are not abstract</p><div></div>

<p>Sanford, I like your interpretation of the theme of the thread. It's a case of a supporting role that, as is often the case, seems to dwarf the role of the star!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Imagine an artist who uses light to cast shadows of an abstract form he created. Is the form abstract but the shadow of it not?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Challenging thought experiment. Thanks.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is kind of a slippery slope (or a rabbit hole), I suppose.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Both!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Clouds are omnipresent but we don't ususally think of them as abstract.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not a bad reason to do so on occasion. ;-)<br /> <br /> _________________________________________________________</p>

<p>In your first photo, the division of the frame might be seen as abstract.</p>

<p>I won't venture into weather reflections of leaves are abstract <em>per se</em> but I think a blurred reflection in rippling water is more abstract than still leaves seen directly. Likewise, a camera that captures the blur of non-reflected leaves blowing in the breeze seems to me to be capturing something more abstract than a camera that stills that movement.</p>

<p> </p>

Phil, I'd like you to interpret the OP however you want.

 

Sometimes awareness will make the supporting role the lead, but I don't think that's always the case. I can be aware of a

supporting character in a movie while maintaining in my mind that there is a leading character who has the leading role.

<p>Fred, that's a very powerful and jarring image contrasted and softened by its dreamlike qualities. It's both abstract and surreal to me. I'ld say it is a partial abstract of a surreal encounter. An impromptu bump into a person awakened from his private and dark area who didn't know he was being photographed and isn't comfortable with it by the look of his gaze. Maybe you should have your own category that combines abstract and surreal.</p>

<p>The shadows do provide an abstract pop art kind of vibe contrasted with an unfamiliar and foreign vibe. It makes me feel uncomfortable looking at it. I know I could never make an image that would make me feel that way, so I know yours is saying something more than what it is, but I just can't put my finger on it. Talk about suggestive and leaving you hanging wondering what that is. </p>

<p>I don't have anything that comes close to that so I'll just post what I shot last night in my local park...</p><div></div>

<p>?</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, but does it work like that in photographs?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me, yes it does.<br>

__________________________________________<br>

<br>

Tim, as with the first one of Edwin's, I think the division of the frame is the abstract aspect that feels most at work to me as supporting player in the photo.<br>

<br>

Gordon, great stuff. For me, your abstraction seems almost to emanate from the "subject." It looks like the sound that may be being made.</p>

<p>Motorcycle Engine </p><div></div>

<p>I'd originally shot this image as an abstract, but, to my eye, the visual dominance of the one figurative reflection took over and removed it from the category. I like the term "supporting role" to describe the abstract qualities that remain, though here there's a kind of continuum between abstract and not. </p><div></div>

<p>I just got back from Peru. </p>

<p>I'm not sure just where this fits, but I'll put it here for want of a better place. This is in Sacsayhuaman, near Cusco. </p><div></div>

<p>Leslie, I like your idea of the continuum. I also come up with questions (more than answers) on what is the difference between distortion and abstraction. What's interesting is that were we ONLY to see the distorted parts of the picture that might seem more abstract than seeing straightforwardly what's also being distorted.</p>

<p>Matthew, thanks for contributing. For me, your photo is a photo of very much what it is, stones and cracks. The resulting geometric design, I think, many people would see as abstract.</p>

<p>I see Leslie's shot as her use of a very unique and rarely used approach in abstract where (I'm assuming) she rendered all the elements as equal in visual strength to where it looks like a "Pop Art" treatment working as one continuous design.</p>

<p>The shots I've taken of carnival rides with a lot of varying colors of varying saturation levels due to reflective surfaces lit by harsh daylight always have hot spots. Shooting these colorful glossy surfaces in shade or overcast helps to maintain uniformity.</p>

<p>Shot this yesterday running a low flow kitchen sink drip shot macro at f/16, 1/50's, ISO 800. Got unusual looking gnarly reflections I'm guessing from slow shutter speeds...</p><div></div>

<p>I think Fred's protocol of introduction in posting this topic should be used as an example for future Abstract Photo threads as a way to loosen up the restrictions of what qualifies as an abstract photo.</p>

<p>I think talking about what it means to the OP can help others in finding photos that fit within the specific topic. That way we can avoid these differences we have with definitions. </p>

<p>Just posting a photo and titling the thread topic with nothing else kind of invites an anything goes mentality and really doesn't make for an interesting and enriching experience. Might as well post over at the No Words forum.</p>