The Nature of Abstract Photography

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>In an abstract picture, the identity of the content is either of no or of secondary/minor importance. In Weston's nudes the fact that we are looking at woman is primary, essential, THE essence, the origin of what that picture is or is capable of being/doing. - Julie</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To me Weston wasn't so much only looking at women through his lens, just like I'm not merely <em>looking at women</em> in his nudes. He was looking <em>for, </em>and<em> seeing</em> an almost limitless display of play of light and lines and forms and textures of and by his nudes, rendered to be looked at in a photograph. Weston gives the lines and forms of his peppers the same photographic celebration as his nudes. So, in many of Weston's nudes the fact that we are looking at a photographic language is of a same important essence, an essence not any differently revealed through and by his other subjects. I'm talking about the photograph - as that which makes a certain abstraction possible - not the subject of the photograph.<br /> <a href="http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e94/tobymutz101/weston-pepper-nude.jpg">http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e94/tobymutz101/weston-pepper-nude.jpg</a></p>

[mizore]

<p>Arthur, yes, I think I'm curious about what the Monet photographs come from. I think we have to be educated out of looking for representation, and this goes beyond photography. People look for figures in clouds, and some of the cave painting appear to be taking a cave feature that suggests the line of a bison's back and drawing in the more complete figure.</p>

<p>Even this is haunted by representationalism and it's not a photograph, though the programs that created it play with photographicness (camera analog and light source analogues).<br>

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2686/4535596309_46f55044a2_o.jpg</p>

 

[mizore]

<p>Double post.</p>

[mizore]

<p>Treble post. Something was leaning against one of the keys.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Rebecca, I agree with you that we really have to be "educated out of" seeking the figurative or representational elements. Most of our existence has been dealing with those representational sights. It may be partly for our safety and for our daily navigation in and interpretation of an objects world, but art, like poetry, does prefer a less "handicapped" view. People are always looking for recognizable elements in purely abstract paintings in my seasonal gallery. I make the error, too, when I sometimes wish to give an abstract painting a meaning other than what it is, and even if there are no recognizable elements there to cloud the issue. Same for Mahler's first symphony, or a Sibelius tone poem (Finlandia, or the Swan of T, ...) or Berlioz's Symphony fantastique. Yes, some of the composers describe their physical experiences in writing the music, but the latter essentially needs to be taken in regard to its musical form and the emotions it can create in the listener, and not "a day in the forest" image, or whatever.</p>

<p>A graphic designer will probably seek out the graphic constructs of your picture example, whereas the photographer will likely wonder what type of object he is looking at. In my "Monet" photo, the texture of the wall is there, as well as the abstract colour forms (I did choose the juxtaposition of forms and colours, as the light changed, of course), but it is not of a very recognizable pattern. in fact, if you didn't know it to be a wall, or the colours those of light projected through a stained glass window, it could be a food surface, gravel, some wooly textile or whatever. The more hidden those signs are, the better. They are at best only distracting to the image.</p>

<p>"I'm talking about the photograph - as that which makes a certain abstraction possible - not the subject of the photograph." Right on, Phylo. A very good defintion, I believe, of the power of abstraction.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>John typed: </strong> it seems telling that any human would think of Weston's nudes, any of them, as "abstracts."<br>

We may have discovered a diagnostic tool in Weston's nudes. :-)"</p>

<p><strong>Fred followed up with:</strong></p>

<p> </p>

 

 

<p>"What do you think it would tell if it were the case that someone had actually said it?"</p>

<p>_______________________________________</p>

<p>Fred...were you baiting JK? Surely <em>you</em> must know lots of humans <strong>have, </strong>and Arthur knew what he was talking about...</p>

<p><strong>"</strong>Weston's treatment of the human body also underwent significant changes as he ventured deeper into modernism. A series of nudes taken in 1934 features sharply focused images that address the female body -- and specific parts of the body -- both abstract and sensual."</p>

<p>and...<br>

<br />"The Akron show, instead, focuses on nudes as another branch of<br /> the artist's search for abstraction, simplification and refinement."<br>

and...</p>

<p>"Kleiman compared the image to Weston’s nudes, citing the abstraction of both."</p>

<p>and...</p>

<p>"One could see in this image a synthesis of several famous pictures by the master in abstraction Edward Weston (1886-1958): the series ‘Dunes, Oceano, 1936’ and ‘Nude on Sand, Oceano, 1936’."</p>

<p>and....I could go on and on...but you get the point.</p>

<p>So...what <strong>does</strong> it tell?</p>

<p>_________________________________</p>

 

 

[mizore]

<p>Arthur, I'm not quite sure what the purpose of the educating out of a craving for mimesis is about, and as someone who did her share of fairly abstract poems in the day, as well as some fairly abstract art, I don't feel particularly squeamish about thinking escaping being haunted by representation is like going faster than the speed of light. My guess on the Monet photograph was cement surface with lights -- and apparently I wasn't that far off, though I thought the lighting had been more composed. Thing is that you can push the mimetic projections down to a tiny fraction of what gives us pleasure in a work, but I'm still not convinced they can be removed and I think playing with the Mark I HumanVisualCortex can be fun. If you could eliminate that tension through discipline, I'm not sure you haven't lost something.</p>

<p>And, yes, I do like Jackson Pollack, where the mimesis is a proprioceptive sympathy for the actions, not anything in the painting.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Luis</strong>, I was not baiting JK. I honestly would like to know what he thinks the fact that someone sees Weston's nudes as abstracts (or abstractly) would tell him. Yes, Luis, of course, I know people who would think of the nudes as absracts. I do myself, to some extent. (I'm sure you've read my posts where I've said that I can see all photographs abstractly.) I think we're observant and studied people, people who are able to see beyond subject when we want to. I just wanted John to explain himself. </p>

<p>It's clear that John thinks the subject matter is primary and essential in Weston's nudes and peppers. I understand and respect that. But I don't understand what John thinks he can tell about those who see these photographs differently.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Rebecca, I'm not sure I grasp your point about mimicking or mimesis, when I really was focusing rather on the desire to reduce any similitude betwen the objects used to make the image (e.g., articles in mixed media abstract painting, or representational objects in abstract photography) rather than to underline their physical correspndence. In attempting to "separate from matter" which is the basis of abstract art, mimesis is usually not in the cards. Please correct me if i am wrong, or if I misinterpreted your comments.</p>

<p>(The canvass of my series of Monet garden abstract images are 13th century worn interior church walls in Berry, - Indre et Loire - France, and the continually moving spots of red, blue, yellow and other were projected light beams of the sun shining through the window and focusing on an interior wall. Fun to spend an hour or so with camera on a tripod and waiting for the light to mix into different forms during that period and choosing the instantaneous but alleatory compositions of personal visual interest).</p>

[softwareoutsourcing]

<p>thorough consideration.<br>

thanks</p>

[sjmurray]

<p><em>"Regardless, my aim is to encourage a viewer, if not to force a viewer, to suspend the use of ordinary categories by which subjects are identified and to view the photograph from a totally different point of view. That, in a nutshell, is my take on the nature of abstract photography.</em><br>

<em>Your thoughts, please . . . ? </em><br>

I agree. Here are a couple of examples of my "abstracts."<em><br /></em></p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>Ice Comets</p><div></div>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred, </strong>I knew you weren't baiting, it's not your style. We agree on everything else.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>John</strong>, you actually have asked me several questions lately in these forums which I've tried to answer substantively (the Goya thread and this thread). I asked you above about humility above (your idea that seeking meaning in a photo does not display humility) and now I've asked what's telling about someone seeing abstraction or abstract in a Weston nude. I hope you'll answer. Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Steve</strong>, though I see the abstraction in each of your two photos, particularly the first one doesn't necessarily move me to suspend normal categories of subject identification. Let me qualify that by saying that a photo of ANYTHING, ANY PHOTO, if I choose to look at it that way (and I often do) allows me to suspend normal categories of subject identification. But the first photo you posted doesn't do it any more than most other photos. I am immediately aware it's a sheer curtain. I see the abstract qualities (the design elements) but remain conscious of it as "curtain."</p>

[mizore]

<p>Arthur, I thought that the counter example to my argument was textiles, which tend to be graphic without being necessarily about anything. Also, some cultures ban mimesis (imitation) and use abstract designs. I'm still not completely convinced that photography is the best medium for abstractions, or that it can escape the conditions of its creation where the lens is pointed at something, whether that something is in or out of focus. Photo collages are another matter, but Julie's collages put the identifiable in considerable tension with the design, and that tension seems to be what give her works their energy.</p>

<p>Rail Car is now you see it, now you don't, and the texture has its own visual attractions.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"I'm still not completely convinced that photography is the best medium for abstractions, or that it can escape the conditions of its creation where the lens is pointed at something" </em><strong>--Rebecca</strong></p>

<p>I understand what you're saying but would probably respond by saying that photography is the best medium for what it does. Precisely because it may not escape (or escapes in a different and incomplete manner) the conditions of its creations, photography may be a great medium for abstraction. It allows the good abstract photographer (and maybe "abstract photographer" is not the best description . . . perhaps "abstracting photographer" or "photographer of abstraction") to play with his own, the camera's, and the viewers expectations. The photographer may be in a unique position to insist that he, himself, as well as the viewer see the inherent abstraction in all subjects. The binding of the abstraction to the identifiable or surmisable subject may act to emphasize and even free the abstraction in a way that its lack of definition in a strictly abstract painting may not. That one can turn the world into an abstract through perspective, close-up, motion blur, etc. (in a photograph) is a very different but just as creative and telling an accomplishment as making the abstract from only lines, shapes, and colors with no subject at all (as in a painting). Each medium's so-called limits are often where creativity and enlightenment begin.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Whatever the limitations of a medium may be, they're minor compared to the limitations of those who use them.</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>Fred, I don't think you were "baiting" me.</p>

<p>1) "diagnosis": <strong>Apollonian</strong> vs <strong>Dionysian. </strong> We all know what such a diagnosis might imply, right?<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

2) It was easy, but mistaken to guess that I "see" (by which you seem to mean "interpret") Weston's nudes and peppers as photographs "of" their subjects. Close, no cigar. </p>

<p>I <strong>first</strong> (and enduringly) <em>respond </em>to them as <em>sensual.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I subsequently "think about" them (rather than see-and-respond) in various other ways. For example, I also think of them in the context of the man's life, as may be known from his Daybooks. Yes, they can also be considered as graphics or as demonstrations of technique...."abstract" aspects can be identified (for who knows what purpose)...but IMO such characteristics are doted on that way <em>only if one is driven to avoid</em> what I think were Weston's intentions. </p>

<p>Appolonian analysis/description does not seem to ME to be Weston's intention..I think he envisioned something closer to Dionysian. I think Appolonian vs Dionysian can be understood in genetic or lifetime-developed-habit terms, but I doubt someone who responds first as A will commonly be able gracefully to respond as D.</p>

<p>3) Any image can be "abstracted"or seen abstractly...it's often done with images too weak to stand on their own ... weird filters, solarization, hyped contrast, reversal etc etc etc... I don't think being "abstracted" connects them to the general high-tone understanding of "abstract art"..."abstract photograph" is usually a non-representational decorative image with no pretentions of weight or significance. </p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>... "responding with humility": responding without <em>projecting</em> one's interpretations or analysis onto someone else's work. If a violinist was playing, I think humility would allow closer listening, even if one was highly educated and sophisticated about the music.</p>

<p>I know a psychiatrist who sees everything in psychoanalytic terms. When I told him he was projecting his favorite concepts on the world, he didn't understand..his particular school of psychiatry isn't interested in projection :-) A psychiatrist is, according to Alan Watts, a magical authority...like a shaman or priest...or Zen master. That means he is especially skilled at convincing others that his understandings are "right" </p>

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Humility is just another projection if it is to be humble. <em>Real</em> humility = emptiness, which might as well be what abstraction is all about.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>John</strong>, thanks for the clarification. Maybe we do agree about interpretation. A little fleshing out helped. To add something, I think all interpretation is not projecting. I may think about and interpret what I see without projecting that onto the photograph or photographer in question. People seem to enjoy interpreting my work all the time, but they will often add a qualification like, "I doubt you intended it this way, but . . . this is how I see it." I love hearing that stuff and I love hearing how they <em>feel</em> when they look at a photograph of mine. Like you, I also can find that "interpretations" can miss the point.</p>

<p>This:</p>

<p>"but IMO such characteristics are doted on that way <em >only if one is driven to avoid</em> what I think were Weston's intention . . ."</p>

<p>. . . is probably grist for another thread. Sometimes, as a viewer, the photographer's/artist's intentions seem significant to me and sometimes I just don't care and I see what's in the photo or painting or hear what's in the music itself as if it were unrelated to a maker. I've said I "own" my own photographs, and I love it when I feel I "own" a photograph or piece of art I'm looking at or piece of music I'm listening to that was made by someone else. Ownership can be found in that mystifying relationship I have with the work itself on one hand and the work as a product of the maker on the other.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"Whatever the limitations of a medium may be, they're minor compared to the limitations of those who use them."</p>

<p>An important notion, Luis, and it should remind us not to put painting, writing, scuplture, architecture or photography in straight jackets, with borders or limited depth. What Weston or Brandt or Brancusi or Piranesi or Wren did in their time may be cutting edge for that time, but I am convinced that (say) Weston or Brandt would happily acknowledge, if they were here, that much greater possibilities exist in their medium than they explored and achieved. That the progress from theirwork may not be rapid, or is sometimes backward leaning, is not the fault of the medium but of the state of art and artists at any one time.</p>

<p>Rebecca, I understand and appreciate your point and your skepticism about photography being able to go beyond abstraction and into the pure abstract (my reformulation or extension of your point). It IS difficult to make an artful abstract of matter, and be largely separate from it, given the tendency of the method (lens on subject, versus brush on canvass or pen on paper), but therein lies the challenge and the potential that has yet to be explored completely and creatively. I was looking today at the work of an abstract artist interested in exhibiting this summer. Her substrate is lathing removed from old plaster walls, cut up and re-assembled in various non-periodic forms and painted over with oils in abstract design. The matter composing the substrate is evident, but one forgets it. Pehaps the trick in abstract photography is not to hide the substrate, but to use it in a manner such that we forget it, in favour of other elements of form or colour that create the abstract.</p>

[jtk]

<p>I want to comment on Steve Murray's beautiful, quiet images (above): I don't think they're at all "abstract." <br>

They're as far from "abstract" as they'd be if Steve had depicted semi-trucks or fashion models.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p><strong>"..."abstract photograph" is usually a non-representational decorative image with no pretentions of weight or significance. "</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

So, John, let me see if I'm reading you correctly. By nature, an abstract photograph is both nonrepresentational and decorative. It also, by comparison with non-abstract photographs, has little weight or significance. If this is not a correct paraphrase, please let me know.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if this is a correct paraphrase, we agree that abstracts are not necessarily representational. However, as has been shown earlier in this thread quite clearly by colleagues, at least some abstracts have one or more representational elements. </p>

<p>"Decorative", "... "no pretentions of weight or significance... :" Your point here is that abstract photographs are nothing but fluff?</p>

<p>Again, l it is quite possible that I misread your comments. Any clarification you can offer will be most appreciated.</p>