What's your definition of abstract?

While browsing through the 'abstract' category, I came across many images that didn't fit my concept of abstract. I

see it as an image that portrays a commonly known subject in such a way that it is not recognizable as such,

through means of unconventional angles, vantage points and perspectives and/or elimination of particular elements of

said subject. I accept that some photos may have been put in this catgegory for want of a more suitable one, but it

made me curious as to how other people interpret the meaning of 'abstract' . This isn't a complaint, but rather a

search for variations on the theme.

If you can't tell what it is, it's an abstract.

How about ,'Having an intellectual and affective artistic content that depends solely on intrinsic form rather than on narrative content or pictorial representation:'?

Hanna-why does it have to involve a 'commonly known subject'?. cb

Abstract is an image of something that might have been recognisable at other angles, perspectives, vantage points, colours, contrasts or other creative uses of the media, but which has been abstracted through the use of those artistic devices to become more or less unrecognisable, made from a concrete thing into patterns of light, shade and/or colour.<p>

<b><font color="red">[urls in signature removed. Violation of Photo.net policy]</font></b>

I tend to consider something abstract if it emphasizes elements like line or form (etc.) to the point of the

subject not being obvious. Not necessarily to the level of <A

href="http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/pollock_jackson.html">Jackson Pollock</A>, but certainly not something

where the point is the subject itself rather than some aspect of the subject which exhibits an interesting design

element. Many of the images in the 'abstract' category appear to me anyway to be misplaced in that regard, but to

each their own I suppose.

<BR><BR>

- Randy

Agreed, some photos submitted to the critique queue under the abstract genre are misplaced. But that's understandable considering there is no simple definition of the concept.

 

My definition is the use of a subject or object as, rather than a more literal representation of itself, a matrix primarily for emphasizing light, shadow, texture and color. Even line, form and volume may be secondary characteristics, depending on the photographer's personal aesthetic.

 

To me, the most successful abstract is one that involves no tangible object or subject, yet creates almost an illusion of the presence of a tangible object or subject.

Bob Atkin's definition, "If you can't tell what it is, it's an abstract", although simplistic, probably well defines it IMO. For my personal taste though, the image needs to have at least a hint of an identifiable subject. This however may be better described as impressionism though (Freeman Patterson or Andre Gallant) and are lumped in with the abstracts for want of a separate category. Some images which are completely identifiable though and are neither abstract or impressionist end up in the abstract category. As do images in other categories, is an image of a wild animal photographed in a zoo still a nature shot?

I have seen many images sent to the wrong category. Example: a picture of a car placed in the concert category!.

Probably careless submissions on the owners part or a very loose interpretation.

 

I think some people just ignore the options and enter the category that is rated most. I have entered a picture

in the humor category and after 3 days it received 1 rating. Moved it to the digital alterations and it got 4

ratings and 1 comment within 1 day.

I just took a quick look through a few dozen images in the critique forum submitted as abstract. More than half of them do not fit any of the definitions put forward so far in this thread. I like Bob's definition best, as it is concise , however all of the other above definitions offered, strongly concur with each other.

 

Clearly a lot of people toss images into the abstract category as a catch all category when none of the other categories seem to fit. I have also noticed that, to some people, any repeating pattern equals abstract as does any random assembly of objects.

I just took a quick look through a few dozen images in the critique forum submitted as abstract. More than half

of them do not fit any of the definitions put forward so far in this thread. I like Bob's definition best, as it

is concise , however all of the other above definitions , strongly concur with each other.

 

It appears that a lot of people toss images into the abstract category as a catch all category when none of the

other categories seem to fit.

 

I have also noticed that, to some people, any repeating pattern equals abstract as does any random assembly of

objects. The fact that the repeating pattern is obviously a zebra or the objects assembled, are clearly a tea

cup, a mitten and a ball of string, seems not to matter.

Sorry about that. My ISP connection is wonky at the moment from thunderstorm activity.

I understand "abstract" in the sense that the image must, well, abstract something from its original subject (geometry, color, motion, structure, texture...). If the zebra for the perception of the image becomes second to the geometry stripes, then there is a level of abstraction that would justify to put it to the category, even if you still see it's a zebra.

A few definitions from a Google search for definitions of abstract.

 

 

" art that is dependent on colour, form, texture, pattern and line without referring to any subject matter

recognisable from the ‘visible’ world "

 

" of art in which the subject is represented by shapes and patterns rather than by a likeness "

 

 

" having only intrinsic form with little or no attempt at pictorial representation or narrative content "

 

" abstract expressionist: an artistic movement of the mid-20th century comprising diverse styles and

techniques and emphasizing especially an artist's liberty to convey attitudes and emotions through nontraditional

and usually nonrepresentational means "

However, these definitions refer to a working process that starts with a blank canvas, or with a bucket of plaster. Photography always starts of with a subject in front of a camera. While in those arts you can start with (your ideea of) the abstraction itself already, the photographer has to work it out first, either at the time of capturing the image or later.

There is "abstract" and then there are "degrees of abstraction". When choosing a category, there are of course, interpretations of this. Personally, I agree with you, but what do you do with the images that fall somewhere between?

I have always considered abstract to be something which doesn't actually present anything more than shapes and colours. But here the main problem seems to be lack of categories when posting pics on crit forum. Excample there is missing the Snapshot category which could be very useful for experimental stuff. Just my opinion.

"but what do you do with the images that fall somewhere between?"

 

I would leave that to the photographer in the end. Certainly, there are pictures in the category which do not

abstract the subject in the sense of the word. However, there are pictures that rather seem <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7593705">impressionistic</a>, maybe even <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7462051">surrealistic</a> to me. Not strictly abstract, but I think

they are better in this category than in others. Still quite a few, I agree, are misplaced. For the specific

problem of the category: When you can assume that the photographer did want to reproduce the subject within its

scenery as seen bye the eye at time of photographing, that does not belong here. Also, there are quite a few

which would have better been posted to "digital alterations"

Tero wrote:

 

"But here the main problem seems to be lack of categories when posting pics on crit forum. "

 

I agree with that observation. I often have trouble trying to figure out what category my images fit into . If all else fails, I put them in Fine Art because I haven't the slightest idea what that is defined as, so it seems safe. I'm betting the same thing happens in other categories.

Great response, and I think all the answers pretty well concur with my interpretation.

 

Charles Becker, that was my poor choice of words, and even as I wrote it I knew someone would pick me up on it. It was late and I was lazy. What I should have said was a recognizable subject. While painters, sculptors or other artists begin from scratch and form the abstract in their mind, I see a photographic abstract as something that starts as a known subject and becomes unrecognizable, which is pretty much what Thomas Rivinius has said.

 

Gordon Bowbrick, I have the same feeling about Fine Art. I'm never sure if the subject is required to be fine art, or the photographic representation of it.

 

Regarding the dilemma posed by lack of categories, possibly one for "impressionistic" would cover anything that was recognizable but has had some in-camera or PS treatment to give an impressionist effect.

Hi Hanna- I have really come to like abstracts over the past couple of years but have stayed away from trying to define it

so I was just curious to know more about your definition. Thanks and happy shooting! regards, cb :-)

I'm not sure actual unrecognition is necessary. If the identity of the subject is more or less irrelevant to the photo, you're getting into abstraction.

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but an abstract can be, IMHO, that isn't concrete. It can be an image that tells a story, just for example I have a series with just a foot and grass and the story telling isn't in your face, but more abstract in thinking...many different ways to go about thinking,

evan