Subject of Abstract Photographs

[ben conover]

Thomas, no conflict intended just trying to shed some light on the idea of the learned abstract.

 

Arnold Newman died recently, he made a photo of violin patterns on a workbench. I would not consider the photo abstract but the shapes in themselves are rather abstract. No?

 

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/N/newman/newman_violin_patterns_full.html

 

Cheers.

[pico_digoliardi]

<b>Thomas</b> <i>You see, without definition, abstract is much like art, an undefined term of no merit until one is willing to tackle the vagaries of putting boundries on the meaning of the word. Without standarized definitions, we're all making it up as we go as a matter of contemporary convenience.</i><p>

 

I see no problem here because Art is adequately defined. So is Abstraction within art. There are other forms of abstraction, of course. <p>

 

There will <i>always</i> be opinions as to what is abstraction, what is art, and some will be informed and some will not be. I would prefer to follow an informed path. The dictionary (again, whichever one chooses) is not a definitive authoritative source of special knowledge.<p>

 

For casual purposes of quotidian you may choose what you wish. If the spirit of this thread is to reach a consensus, then it is futile. If the spirit is to be wishy-washy to make people feel good, then it is of no value. If the spirit is to explore the phenomena and discipline of abstraction, then one must get into the literature.<p>

 

<b>Daniel Lawton</b> <i>Hmm.. I still don't get it. What is this education you speak of that better allows one to appreciate an abstract photo or any photo for that matter. [...] </i><p>

 

Forgive me for snipping so much of your post, Daniel. You make good points regarding education, indoctrination, teaching 'right ways' of seeing art, but that's the bad side of the field. Yes, I know a few professional art scholars who do no art, who work their entire lives in a niche to promote their views of Art, and that's okay because it's criticism which is a whole different field than Making Art. It's those critics who would pursuade artists to do things the critic's way, or atttempt to influence the 'value' of work in the critics metrics that is just plain wrong-thinking, human pride, human evil.<p>

 

But there is the middleground in which we can learn about kinds of abstraction in order to understand it better, and that is what I am addressing. I asked earlier <i>Is the photo symbolic/substitutional, equivalent, transcendent? </i> I can add a great many more possibilities Is it not interesting to get <i>deeper</i> than the 2D of a piece to find where it may (or may not) be using visual semiotics?<p>

My fingers are tired of typing so I'll stop there for now.

[pico_digoliardi]

<b>Thomas</b><i> Yes, being a good mime makes instructors feel powerful and they reward those who enhance this feeling of manipulative power over others with higher grades when it comes to a subjective skill such as is art:) </i><p>

 

If the instructor's motive in the case above is merely to promote his superiority, to subvert the honor of the student, then the instructor is just plain wrong and otta be bitch slapped. However, there are master-student dialogs that stand by themselves as part of the making of art. Engaging voluntarily and in good spirts with the dialog can be a valuable part of learning. Presuming the instructor's motives are benign (at worst), then ignoring the instructor's attempt to exchange seems unnecessary, possibly rude.<p>

Now my hand really hurts. I'm off the keyboard for awhile.

[ken johnson]

When I referred to "educated" I meant it in a very broad sense, not in a formal or elitist sense. We learn from our discussions. There doesn't need to be a conclusion or consensus--after all, this is a forum under the philosophy of photography. I found the discussion quite stimulating--it made me think.

[beeman458]

"Art is adequately defined. So is Abstraction within art."

 

Again, I'd love to read something more concrete than an etheral statement.

 

I find "art" a totally undefined word that would support a thread unto itself should one wish to throw open to the forum in regard to a discussion which requests a concrete definition. Abstract is a much simplier concept as it's, in the simple, just a part of the whole and nothing more but then there are those who'll try to make it into something overly agrandized when the simple will do.

 

"Presuming the instructor's motives are benign (at worst), then ignoring the instructor's attempt to exchange seems unnecessary, possibly rude."

 

A benign instructor? :) That's an oxymoron:)

 

One encourages creativity through the encouragment of one to ignore convention, after one successfully understands convention, unless one clearly states they're expecting mimesis of their words via artistic deed.

[root]

"Abstract is a much simplier concept as it's, in the simple, just a part of the whole and nothing more . . . "

 

Although that is one definition of the word, it hardly describes the result of most of the artistic output of those we associate with the genre. All 2D framed pieces are part of a whole, so you could say that that definition is meaningless. I would add that at the very least, the idea is to remove many or most visual clues such that the identity of the subject, while not necessarily disguised, is no longer the first impression of the viewer, but rather some form of the elements that make up all images - lines, shapes, texture, etc.

 

There is also the issue of distortion vs representation. Some of the earlier posters are forgetting that subjects can be distorted, yet remain "true" by any restricted definition of photography. . . . again, not a requirement, but very common.

[pico_digoliardi]

<b>Thomas Gardner</b><i> Abstract is a much simplier concept as it's, in the simple, just a part of the whole and nothing more...</i><p>

 

That's just plain silly. Abstraction has many more dimensions than that. As abstract concerns art? Well I listed above a few terms of approach - twice. And that's just a beginning. I will leave the terms I listed aside for the moment and get to the heart of the word.<p>

 

<i>Again, I'd love to read something more concrete than an etheral statement.</i><p>

You probably mean ethereal.<p>

Okay, let's start with art and abstraction. First let's dispense with the obvious: abstract art is not everything that looks strange or obscure; such works could be an unintentional, a half-baked mess or even a product of nature. Art transcends nature. Nature itself doesn't produce art, but it can produce art makers.<p>

Next let us dispense with the 'subjective' interpretation of a natural object as abstraction. Everything we make is technically subjective, but uninformed subjective depiction alone is more properly Impressionism.<p>

Abstraction in art concerns qualites of an object that are not apparent in its appearance, but instead is a representation of whatever the artist chooses as an essential quality, for example, the space it occupies as it moves, or extrapolated inversions or extraversions of perspective lines, it's visual weight/substance (see the sculpture Moore) and so-forth. The possibilities are as broad as the qualities of an object as long as the scope is clear and transcends its appearance - otherwise its impressionistic or just a confusion.<p>

Abstract art transcends things made by the natural world.<p>

 

Now we come to your claim that an abstraction is part of the whole and nothing else. Not true. Look, a photograph of an object that renders the object in a more-than-less faithful maner, such as a macro or micro image is NOT an abstraction because it shows the thing itself, uninterpreted, unexplained. It is a photograph. It is not abstraction. <p>

[beeman458]

"...it hardly describes the result of most of the artistic output of those we associate with the genre."

 

Carl, weren't we referring to "photography" and "...abstract photographs?"

 

My comments revolve around the OP's original subject matter, "...abstract photographs."

[root]

Yes, let's talk about photographic abstracts.

 

http://www.theartleague.org/index2.php?start=awards

 

comments?

[beeman458]

"Thomas Gardner Abstract is a much simplier concept as it's, in the simple, just a part of the whole and nothing more...

 

"That's just plain silly."

 

Intentionally overly simplistic yes, but silly no. Why? Expectedly, some like to agrandize terms where as I like to abstract (simplify) them:)

 

At pest control seminars, speakers like to agrandize ants and make them complicated. Me, I like to overly simplify the process and get paid for doing so:) Who's correct, the guy telling me things are more complicated then they really are, or me, for simplifying the process to what it really is; abstraction?

 

"Abstraction has many more dimensions than that."

 

In photographic terms?

 

"As abstract concerns art?"

 

No, as abstract concerns photography which the OP alluded to in his original question.

 

Well I listed above a few terms of approach - twice. And that's just a beginning. I will leave the terms I listed aside for the moment and get to the heart of the word.

 

Hmmmmm! :) Listing does not concrete make. Can you do more, like substantiate? :)

 

"Again, I'd love to read something more concrete than an etheral statement."

 

"You probably mean ethereal."

 

Yes, it's called a typo and you knew that:)

 

"Okay, let's start with art and abstraction."

 

Shouldn't we be starting with photography as the OP suggested?

 

"First let's dispense with the obvious: abstract art is not everything that looks strange or obscure; such works could be an unintentional, a half-baked mess or even a product of nature. Art transcends nature. Nature itself doesn't produce art, but it can produce art makers."

 

Well, there's goes the found art theory:)

 

"Next let us dispense with the 'subjective' interpretation of a natural object as abstraction. Everything we make is technically subjective, but uninformed subjective depiction alone is more properly Impressionism."

 

Wow! Another definition bites the dust:)

 

--------------------------------

http://the-artists.org/MovementView.cfm?id=0E5B804E%2DC426%2D4465%2DB55B4760A9457DC9

 

http://artchive.com/galleries/1874/74rewald.htm

 

http://www.students.sbc.edu/kitchin04/artandexpression/modern%20art.html

 

The movement of Impressionism is quite fascinating for each artist�s individual thinking and style comes alive in their works. The original group of young Impressionist painters include well-known names like Monet, Renoir, Pissarro and Sisley, and lasted as a movement for about fifteen years with the first exhibition in 1874 and the last in 1885.

 

Impressionist artists were concerned with the affects and quality of light, and knew how colors could complement or alter one another. The spontaneity of their painting was a great contrast to academic paintings of the past, and leisure time activities were a favorite subject. Impressionist artists tended to avoid "the painful realities of the world, of violence, war, heartache, illness and death" (Thomson, 13). By the 1870s, the Impressionists were united and aimed to paint modern life. While the name impressionism derives from realism, the movement was deemed as such because of Monet�s �Impression Sunrise�.

 

----------------------------

 

Me thinks you're a bit skewed on Impressionism. :)

 

Do you have anything concrete you can link to or are you only able to post what you think it should be?

 

"Now we come to your claim that an abstraction is part of the whole and nothing else. Not true. Look, a photograph of an object that renders the object in a more-than-less faithful maner, such as a macro or micro image is NOT an abstraction because it shows the thing itself, uninterpreted, unexplained. It is a photograph. It is not abstraction."

 

Is this how you see things or is there a source to your above?

 

Abstract photography, by nature, will "always" be a part/fragment of the whole, no matter how indecipherable the image might be.

 

How do "you" define abstract photographic art. "Your" definition here would be helpful.

 

Image is an abstract within an abstract.

[beeman458]

"comments?"

 

Ah yes, your painting:)

[root]

Is that the best you can do?

 

And what's with the snapshot of someone else's art.

 

We aren't getting very far are we?

[beeman458]

"Is that the best you can do?"

 

For me yes as I don't do critiques as there is no such thing as a valid critique, mine or otherwise.

 

"And what's with the snapshot of someone else's art."

 

What's with the snap of someone else's building:)

 

We aren't getting very far are we?

 

Not at this rate:)

 

Where did you want to go with your comments?

[mike butler]

Thomas,

 

This discussion could be a setback for your physical and mental health! As a condominium

association president (a thankless job if there ever was) in Florida once told me: "If people

have enough time, they can separate fly shit from pepper."

[beeman458]

"This discussion could be a setback for your physical and mental health!"

 

Yes, you're probably right but look at all the fun we're having discussing abstracts, photography and how it applies to what we, as photographers, are doing with our photographic efforts and how it impacts those who view our efforts.

 

It really has been quite fun.

[root]

""And what's with the snapshot of someone else's art."

 

What's with the snap of someone else's building:)"

 

If you really don't see the difference, then we have nothing to talk about. Maybe you're having fun, but I'm disappointed in the lack of content of this thread. I find none of your links insightful and would suggest you check out John MacKay's article linked above. . . if this subject actually interests you.

[beeman458]

"If you really don't see the difference, then we have nothing to talk about."

 

Let's see, I'm thinking of a word here..... juxtaposition. Yeah! That's the ticket.

 

One of the things my sabatical taught me, lite is better than heavy.

 

Wishing you well with your photographic efforts Carl.

[mg]

"My questions are, why do people viewing these always ask of what I made the photograph? Why does it seem important for them to know?"

 

I have no idea. Perahps do they need to hold on to something real, that can be identified, in order to avoid feeling dizzy ? It sure doesn't seem all that important to me either, but you are right, to most people, it is - and yes, in painting just like in photography.

 

As a side-note, I really like the abstract you posted here, Mark. I wish we could see more of those... After a quick look through your portfolio I saw mostly predictable (and not all that interesting) natural close-ups and such... I think, maybe abstracts should be your main dish from now on - or perhaps it's already the case...?

[pico_digoliardi]

<i>Yes, let's talk about photographic abstracts. <br>

http://www.theartleague.org/index2.php?start=awards <p>

 

comments?</i><p>

 

Personally, I find none of them to be abstract. Pretty, attractive, yes! But not abstract. <p>

[pico_digoliardi]

<b>Mr. Gardner</b><i> Intentionally overly simplistic yes, but silly no. Why? Expectedly, some like to agrandize terms where as I like to abstract (simplify) them:) </i><p>

 

Simplifying a statement is not necessarily abstraction. Making impressionistic simplified statements of a deep subject is avoidance, for better or worse: usually worse if one is seeking understanding. Confucius bedamned.<p>

<i>Shouldn't we be starting with photography as the OP suggested? </i><p>

We diverged from that posit early on when a couple of us suggested that photographs cannot be abstract. That remains an open question, probably within the impossible and neverending and futile arguments concerning whether photography can be art. <p>

 

<i>Well, there's goes the found art theory:) </i><p>

Found art is closer to accident, and therefore it does not transcend nature because there is no human being interpreting the original object. The image might stand for an equivalence in they eyes of the presenter, but then that relies upon written words or another image to equate to. It gets messy there. Found images are not abstract art, but just a confusion. It doesn't mean they cannot stand upon their own as engaging or beautiful. It just means it's not abstract art. <p>

<i>Abstract photography, by nature, will "always" be a part/fragment of the whole, no matter how indecipherable the image might be. </i><p>

By that measure, then "no matterhow indecipherable" is an unnecessary statement: all photographs are abstract in your terms. If all photographs are abstract, then none are, or the word "abstract" is meaningless. That's clear logic. <p>

[beeman458]

"If all photographs are abstract, then none are, or the word "abstract" is meaningless. That's clear logic."

 

Now you've entered the quagmatic world of "parsing." :)

 

Sans accepted definitions, everything's an abstract just as everything's art (anarchy,) which is why many want to know what "it" is cause "free falling" gives most people the "willies."

[beeman458]

"Found images are not abstract art,..."

 

Never stated that it was.

[beeman458]

"Simplifying a statement is not necessarily abstraction."

 

Sure it is, by definition. Now the question, is the gross simplification recognizable as to the original commentary as in does the simplification distort reality to the point of becoming unrecognizable? :)

[melresnick]

<<My questions are, why do people viewing these always ask of what I made the photograph? Why does it seem important for them to know?>>

 

Where's this thread going?

 

Someone please turn on the autofocus. Manual's not working.

[root]

Pico diGoliardi Photo.net Patron, jul 12, 2006; 09:44 a.m.

Yes, let's talk about photographic abstracts.

http://www.theartleague.org/index2.php?start=awards

 

comments?

 

'Personally, I find none of them to be abstract. Pretty, attractive, yes! But not abstract."

 

Pico, I was referring only to mine. . . and what on earth would you call the painting directly under mine?

 

To reject the concept of "found abstracts", you would have to be able to recognize the elements. If you can tell me what every shape in this frame represents (or in all the other abstracts scattered throughout my portfolio), I suspect it's because you've been studying my work and reading the comments (perhaps under another assumed identity:-)). Anyhow, understanding the basics is not the same as understanding every line and shape.

 

"Found art is closer to accident, and therefore it does not transcend nature because there is no human being interpreting the original object."

 

All photographers interpret a scene using common techniques. Otherwise there is no point to most photography. The most obvious technique here is the removal of elements that indicate scale, time, place, depth, etc.

 

"The image might stand for an equivalence in they eyes of the presenter, but then that relies upon written words or another image to equate to."

 

Sometimes the association is obvious without any explanation, but even if viewers interpret it differently, that does not make it less abstract or a failure. If it clearly has the potential for multiple interpretations apart from its' own reality, so much the better. That's what abstracts do.

 

"It gets messy there. Found images are not abstract art, but just a confusion. It doesn't mean they cannot stand upon their own as engaging or beautiful. It just means it's not abstract art."

 

Let's take an image that isn't confusing - "Two Brown Eggs". It's either a rear end or eggs. No imagination required, really.

 

But it sounds like you're saying if it's confusing, it isn't photographic abstract art, and if it isn't confusing, it isn't abstract photographic art?

 

Some people who have an imagination (whether they interpret images the same way I do or not) seem to enjoy my found abstracts. Some of them are pretty, but they've made it clear that that isn't the primary attraction. If they see something - obvious or obscure - are they wrong? Are the ones who disengage right?