The Nature of Abstract Photography

[jtk]

<p>Michael, </p>

<p>YMMV, but here's how I understand some of this matter :</p>

<p>Lots of abstract work appeals to me at various levels and in various ways. "Abstract photography" is usually merely decorative, IMO, just as it seems intended to be. <em> </em></p>

<p><em>I didn't call it inferior</em>, just as I wouldn't say Miley Cyrus is inferior to Edith Piaf. There's nothing wrong with fluff and there's little virtue in difficulty.</p>

<p>Photographic abstraction processes can make inconsequential images interesting and decorative. That's a good thing, right?</p>

 

<p> </p>

[michaellinder]

<p>John - Thanks for your clarification. Now I better understanding your POV.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> On Weston's intentions and abstractions, in the man's <em>own words, </em>as may be known from his Daybooks<em>...</em></p>

<p><em>3/10/24, Mexico (At the time he was doing Tina nudes, Galvan's portrait, etc)<br /></em></p>

<p><em>"I see in my recent negatives...pleasant and beautiful <strong>abstractions..."</strong></em></p>

<p>and:</p>

<p>"<em>I shall let no chance pass by to record interesting <strong>abstractions</strong>..."</em></p>

<p><em>1/28/32</em></p>

<p><em>"No painter or sculptor can be wholly <strong>abstract."</strong></em></p>

<p>and:</p>

<p>"<em>I have proved through photography that that Nature has all the <strong>"abstract</strong></em>" (simplified) forms Brancusi or any other artist can imagine."</p>

<p>[He still thought realism to be the medium's strong suit, but was not averse to abstractions, and thought some of his work abstract.]<br>

____________________________________________________<br>

<em><strong> </strong></em></p>

[mizore]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Arts live in the tensions of their mediums. Choosing photography as a way of creating an abstracted end work, I would like to see the artist use the bank shots effectively. Trying to emulated a ray tracing, not so much. Ray tracings are, though, as haunted by photography as photographs is haunted by representation.</p>

<p>Totally pure abstraction -- why through away vectors of tension? Why not make a painting or a ray tracing, or hardcode a JPEG (I'm really waiting for someone to write graphics in bare JPEG).</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Thanks for the quotes Luis,<br /> I always found that of Weston's work, precisely the reason why I linked the Weston nudes. Didn't read the daybooks myself, one just has to <em>look</em> at the pictures with a little bit of imagination in reverse to distill a hidden intention of an abstraction, behind the no doubt piercingly representational subject of the photographs. Whether its done through nudes as the subject or not isn't really relevant. Minimalism.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Why not make a painting or a ray tracing,"</em></p>

<p>I don't know. Why shouldn't we all dance or all have a family or all live in California? Why, indeed, don't we all do everything alike? Most importantly, why don't those damn British drive on our side of the road? Are you suggesting we predetermine the best usage(s) of each medium and stick to that? It would never have allowed Bach's great Violin Partita to be transcribed for the piano by Busoni. I much prefer it played on the violin but am glad it can be played on the piano, too. It makes the piece richer in my eyes and allows pianists to express themselves through it. Many prefer the piano version. I think the creative one gets to decide what he/she will do with the medium and I'm not sure how productive this sort of prejudging can be?</p>

<p><em>"why through [sic] away vectors of tension?"</em></p>

<p>I like tension . . . sometimes. Sometimes I'm looking for more calm or a more singular dimension. When I look at the work of others, I try not to be so needy . . . wanting wanting wanting. I try to give myself over to what they want. What I often don't like I can still appreciate.</p>

[sobeystudio]

<p>Michael-<br>

After looking at the portfolio you have presented for us, I have come to the conclusion that your work is not abstract photography, but rather photography that has been abstracted. It may be an afterthought, not necessarily the intent while shooting. This is not bad or wrong, it just is. While the work utilizes both graphic design and photographs, you are not creating photographs- you are making mixed media art works. (was 19th century pictorialism- sandwiching negatives etc. considered abstract?) Either way the abstract nature of the work is thought provoking, the intent of abstraction. I think it was Weston who spoke of photography freeing painters of having to try to capture the realism photography so readily offered- thusly opening the door to abstraction, a style intended to promote thought, introspection and a different sort of critical analysis. Has video's ability to capture reality, exponentially greater than photography's, freed photographers from having to portray realism, leading to more abstraction?</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"Abstract photography" is usually merely decorative. (John)</p>

<p>If that is true (which I personally think not), then, wow, photography has a way to go yet and the windows of opportunity are wide open. Many see nothing in abstract painting and are probably therefore unable to equate compositions, point, line and form, colours, textures, contrasts, dynamics of forms (tensions, equilibria, etc.) and other elements to visual voices attempting to communicate with the viewer. The basic perception of design elements can be caused by the limitations of the work itself, or in better abstract work by the viewer's inability or a lack of willingness to perceive things separate from matter.</p>

<p>Perhaps the nature of photography, its "realism anchor ", inhibits the mind exercise that recognizes these things and instead prefers the greater "comfort" of representational or quasi-representational objects that the photographer is schooled to appreciate. Perhaps an unfortunate consequence of too much familiarity with the medium.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Martin: I suspect you are right in quite a few instances. The creation of an abstract photograph is not always my original intent, especially regarding those abstracts that are more heavily "graphic". But is this materially different than what may go through the mind of a photographer before, or at the time at which, any photograph is taken? I know some photographers take the position that camera work is the be-all and end-all of the photographic process. Yet my hunch is that this is just a matter of degree. </p>

<p>Arthur: I think you just stated my case!</p>

<p> </p>

[mizore]

<p>Fred, some of this is that most of the abstract photographs I've seen have been rather boring because they were trying to be paintings or textiles. We can crop art; we can't translate it into music the way we can transpose music from one instrument to another. We can translate a novel from one language to another, but we can't make a movie out of the whole thing -- it's another different work, and it succeeds or fails on the virtues of movies, not the virtue of the parent novel.</p>

<p>Maybe abstractions are a form in themselves, but then what are the qualities of abstractions independent of how they're made?</p>

[jtk]

<p><em>"... an unfortunate consequence of too much familiarity with the medium."</em> - Arthur</p>

<p>Arthur, that seems central to your broader perspective. It seems simultaneously to support my prejudice that "familiarity with the medium" might lead one away from lite work, toward something more significant.</p>

<p>Are you saying that someone skilled might overlook the potential in his in lack of ability? Satisfaction with Photoshop abstractions might justify avoiding photographic ability? Lack of ability leads to an aesthetic positive?</p>

<p>Might van Gogh or Picasso have "unfortunately" had "too much familiarity" to appreciate Surapa ?</p>

<p><cite>www.roadsideamerica.com/story/7018 </cite></p>

[jtk]

 

<p>hmmm: Someone less "familiar" can overlook the potential in his in lack of ability. Satisfaction with Photoshop abstractions justifies avoidance of the risk taking involved traditionally in photography. Lack of familiarity leads to an aesthetic positive. Voila! There's a market for that in Wasilla!<br>

<cite> </cite></p>

[jtk]

<p><em>".. the Weston nudes. Didn't read the daybooks myself, one just has to look at the pictures with a little bit of imagination in reverse to distill a hidden intention of an abstraction "</em> :-) :-) fabulous :-)</p>

<p>My grandfather managed to make a little money during the Great Depression by caponizing chickens.</p>

<p>He didn't use his "imagination in reverse to distill" anything "hidden," he neutered those roosters so they'd grow extra fat and get a better-than-hen price when he sold them to fancy San Francisco hotels :-)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I like what <strong>John</strong> and <strong>Arthur</strong> are addressing albeit from different perspectives: <em>The significance of the medium to the work produced.</em> (Topics for new threads abound, but let's leave this here for a bit.)</p>

<p>I like exploring the unique aspects of the photographic medium. One is its dependence on reality for its raw materials. Like John, I see a lot of photographs (not just abstractions, by any means) as an escape from and a <em>shallow</em> denial of the medium. On the other hand, as I've said, I'm all for the freedom to do what I want with the so-called "limits", "restraints", or what we might simply call characteristics of the medium.</p>

<p>Example: Blur is something I consider a prized possession of the photograph. When done well, it shows me an intimacy and familiarity with the medium. In other hands, it can be obvious and trite.</p>

<p>When it comes to abstraction and particularly computer-generated abstraction, I would assess similarly. If I sense the denial and/or design aspects are transcending, a denial or design using the medium significantly to go beyond it or move it forward or express something genuine, or a denial <em>effectively</em> one-dimensional and purposefully rebellious, I can be moved. But when I feel like John in some instances that a use of the photographic medium is simply a way of avoiding the medium and avoiding familiarity or curiosity, I become bored.</p>

<p>I wonder if and why certain genres of photography seem more prone to this kind of avoidance <em>to me</em>. Some of it is taste, but I think some of it is inherent to the specific genre or subject matter. I try to avoid making generalizations about genres and their pitfalls. In most cases, it's about the capabilities, sophistication, genuineness, and expressiveness of the person using the genre. The flaws I find usually lie with the maker and the specific photograph produced, <em>not</em> with the genre itself.</p>

[sobeystudio]

<p>Fred- nicely put.<br>

Personally, I'm big on intent. Having it and letting go of it, another form of intent I guess, really. I like to search for more from the medium- in every aspect.<br>

Part of the "concerns" surrounding abstraction are also skill level, which goes right to intent. I feel, the greater the skill of the photographer, the deeper the intentions- not necessarily more important, but more layers, more history- a more informed result. This doesn't mean the images get better, just the force behind them. Usually though, with better skills and greater intent, a photographer will get a "better" photo- at least for themselves.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Sort of following up on Fred's last post (unless he slips in another while I'm typing, which he is wont to do), it's been my experience that I have often stumbled on really exciting new techniques or ways of seeing via shooting abstracts, things that aren't things. And I get so excited about this new texture or effect or whatever it is that in the old days I used to have a really hard time admitting to myself that it was a part, not a whole. I'd found something key, but it wasn't ... enough. It's my opinion that I see something like this in a lot of abstracts; to my eye, they don't work as whole pictures but I can see what excited the photographer. As an example, I offer one of my ice pictures (I bet you have some of these):<br>

<img src="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/ice_2010.jpg" alt="" /><br>

I used to take tons of these, straining to make them stand up -- and they don't. They are a stage with no actors. (Conversely, I often get actors with no stage.) However, as a compositor, I get to collect all these bits that excite me and build them into wholes, which is a good thing because I don't seem to be able to stop taking ice pictures (and dew drops, but that's another story). I've used previous ice patterns under some of the pictures in my <em>Red Line</em> series, and I have a new pile of them waiting for who knows what; when the actors show up, I'll be ready.</p>

[mizore]

<p>Julie, it's just a different perspective on ice and rocks :).</p>

[Julie H]

<p>There is no spoon.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>There is no spoon.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes ! There is no spoon, there's only perception.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>" This scenario, where photography is linked to external events, is often repeated and it is something that I have always wanted to avoid. I want to take images that are of the very most humble and insignificant subject matter. Andre Kertesz once told me that a photographer "must learn to photogrpah everything". I hear his words today. Bereft of conventional notions of subjectivity there exists a photographic proximity best described as <em>point blank</em>. This quality is unique to photography, it has been described by the abstract expressionist painters in their theoritical text in a magazine called "IT IS". I yearn towards pure photography. I don't want to make a photograph, I want to make a <em>photography. </em>I think there's a level of content that hasn't been reached yet, but that is definitely attainable within the confines of the medium. <strong>I want to make the act of perception itself the subject of the photograph. - </strong>Ralph Gibson</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can definitely relate to what Gibson is saying here, in <em>Refractions</em> on the subject of <em>Images of Nothing.</em><br>

<strong><br /></strong></p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Avoidance, hmm . . . My suspicion is that, by creating an abstract photograph, the photographer is risking more, and putting more on the line, precisely for the reason that the ready identifiability of the subject, the anchor in reality, etc., is not always evident. The intent is there; it just may be harder to find.</p>

[jtk]

<p>"anchor in reality" pretends either-or, the standard-issue religious theory (body/spirit, reality/essence etc)....whereas "abstract" is the only image product of photography and it only exists in the viewer's perception.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Here's E. Weston writing about pepper #30, from the Daybooks, 8/8/30:</p>

<p> " It is a classic, completely satisfying, -- a pepper -- but more than a pepper: abstract, in that it is completely outside of subject matter. It has no psychological attributes, no human emotions are aroused: this new pepper takes one the world as we know it in the conscious mind. To be sure, <em>much of my work has this quality </em>[italics mine]..."</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>Luis, your quotation misuses Weston's early morning ruminations, attempting to turn them into THE ANSWER.</p>

<p> Weston announced what a pepper image conveyed by fiat, as if he was the Pope. I think we owe him a little slack, especially as he wasn't posting on this Forum. He was starting to explore what a scholar would recognize as a breakthrough-sort-of-image...the context and related ideas hadn't yet been beaten to death on Photo.net.</p>

<p><em>By definition, a photograph conveys what the viewer perceives...never what the viewer is told . I doubt Weston's intimates would have agreed with his statements about his own images. I doubt Stieglitz would have agreed. And I doubt that "abstract" meant the same thing to Weston as it does to anybody here in 2010.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Like all photographs (every single photograph) Weston's pepper is <em>by definition</em> "outside its subject matter." All photographs are "abstractions" in that sense...so the word has little or no significance in a photographic context.</p>

<p>Weston surely knew his image aroused human emotions...no matter what he asserted in the early morning over his first cuppa. He was as prone to BS as any photographer.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>John</strong>, "abstract photograph" refers to a photograph whose subject is unrecognizable (or mostly unrecognizable), usually boiled down to lines, shapes, shadows, colors . . . patterns.</p>

<p>On a significant level, yes, all photographs are abstractions. Good point to emphasize and discuss. That's a different level from the level where one would speak of an abstract or non-abstract photograph. Both of these levels can be discussed coherently.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Or, the difference between an abstract photograph and an abstract <em>photography, </em>the difference between the subject and <em>perception being the subject</em>.</p>