The Nature of Abstract Photography

[jtk]

<p>Fred and Phylo, I don't accept that there's a unique category of photography that's "abstract." It's all abstract, entirely. But my frame of reference comes from painters more than amateur photographers.</p>

<p>You're certainly entitled to your own use of the term, but IMO it's unrelated to the "abstract" concept that's used by painters. Perhaps that's not relevant to you, but for me it emphasizes the misbegotten fantasy that photography is so inconsequential that it needs the "art" label to gain entrance into curricula and galleries. </p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"amateur photographers"</em></p>

<p><em>"misbegotten fantasy"</em></p>

<p><em>"inconsequential"</em></p>

<p><em>"the 'art' label"</em></p>

<p><strong>--John Kelly</strong></p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>John <em>made up</em> the following about me -- and not as opinion, so I am allowed to reply:</strong></p>

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

<p> No, <strong>JK.</strong> Dead wrong, not even close. You overlooked one small but significant thing:</p>

<p>Reality. All I did was quote Weston, nothing more. <strong>I said nothing</strong><em>. Zip, Zero, Nada. </em>Try reading what I wrote sometime.<em><br /></em></p>

<p><em> </em> From memory, I can tell you your convenient ideas about what his contemporaries thought, are wrong in the cases of Hagemeyer, O'Keefe, and his neighbor painter/friend, whose last name fails me, but I believe it was Shore. I'll have to read Stieglitz's correspondence from Weston (who partially destroyed A.S's) sometime get back to you.</p>

<p>___________________________</p>

<p><strong>Fred </strong>read my mind and beat me to it while I was posting:</p>

 

 

<p><em>"amateur photographers"</em><br>

<em>"misbegotten fantasy"</em><br>

<em>"inconsequential"</em><br>

<em>"the 'art' label"</em><br>

<strong>--John Kelly</strong></p>

<p><strong> That says it all.<br /></strong></p>

 

<p><em><br /></em></p>

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

[jtk]

<p>"<strong>That says it all."</strong><br>

That's sufficient for the shallow end of the pool.</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>John, what is "the "abstract" concept that's used by painters"?</p>

 

[michaellinder]

<p>John: Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. With all due respect, there's no "either-or". Your own statement that photography is all abstract clearly implies that any differences are in degree only. See the comments Fred posted before yours.</p>

<p>Thinking about what you've stated and Phylo's last post, the concept of "metaphotography" popped into my head. I've gotta chew on this for a while. Stay tuned....... </p>

[jtk]

<p><strong>Michael and Don</strong> I'll try again: ALL photography (and all visual perception) is "abstract," ie we view the world and we abstract it and when we photograph it we abstract it further. Always and only. That's how our physical and psychological systems function.</p>

<p>We do not become consciously aware of or conceptualize ANYTHING OTHER than abstractions. <strong>We never become consciously aware of (or produce photographs of ) "reality."</strong> Our nervous systems sense heat, color, pain, movement etc etc...but our awareness is an abstraction of that information and our concepts and photographs are approximate organizations of that abstract information...always and only.</p>

<p> <strong>I shouldn't have said "used by painters"</strong> because many painters whose work gets labeled "abstract" simply make decorative, non-referential work ...they sell well in arts fairs if they use the right color schemes etc ...they make pretty pictures, a wonderful thing, but they seem generally unconnected with the more specific point I failed to make for Michael, above. </p>

<p>I'm not a painter, not deeply enough experienced in painting appreciation etc, and it has taken me years and lots of accidental experiences in museums ( Met, MOMA etc) to catch on to the point I was trying to make...it's not easily conveyed here. <strong> And of course it's not a verbal concept, it's visual. Remember, for many of us this forum is anchored in visual issues, more than verbal. </strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>I suggest browsing for the work of Giorgio Morandi</strong>, who seems to me to be the "abstract" painter who, painting still life, seems to have come closest to photography (far from photo realistic).. Morandi is relatively "famous" among intensive, non-decorative painters but seems overlooked by art teachers ... ...no motel wall-hangers...he was intensely focused on a very small, dull-seeming world...he utilized a very constrained palate.<br>

I won't quote Morandi on this topic, but he does "famously" address it and you can find that if you browse. I don't think quotations often serve philosophic discussions usefully.</p>

 

[sjmurray]

<p>All thought is in my head, therefore all thinking is abstract. However, some thoughts are more abstract than others, hehe.<br>

Google "abstract photographs" and you will see that currently, the most common conception of the term is represented by photographs that are often of identifiable objects, but photographed in such a way that a lot of visual cues are eliminated, and often incorporating unusual angles and shadows. Another group of "abstract photographs" are simply unidentifiable because of the lack of any cues as to what it is, and we are looking simply at colors, forms, etc. Both types of images seemed to be accepted as being "abstract" in modern usage.<br>

My two photos shown above when mounted and framed typically get the response: "What is it?" This makes me think that the lack of visual cues has made these photos somewhat abstract, because viewers can't readily identify what it is they are looking at. I think the term "abstract" obviously has several meanings but as it pertains to photography at this time it typically means an image that is "abstracted" somewhat, and to varying degrees, from the usual view, and is often lacking the visual cues that we normally expect, thus making the image lean more towards something other than what it actual is, and can be enjoyed as an image for that sake alone, or even if the identity of the object is known.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John is employing the term abstract to make a compelling point about photography <em>per se</em>. In doing so, he is refusing to acknowledge the more common "abstract photograph." If someone else on the forum did this, he'd be going on about the importance of agreed-upon usages. I'm amused at the picture of John berating himself right now for blowin' smoke, one of his favorite accusations.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Fred, please address the topic (OT) to the extent you're capable. There's no reason to snipe at my expression of my own thoughts. I wonder how many other individual thoughts have been crushed that way? </p>

<p>Do look into Giorgio Morandi's work (best as paintings rather than just online) and his thoughts about the topic. Maybe you know a serious and successful painter or arts scholar (as opposed to photo teacher) who can help. I realize he's not been mentioned here previously, but don't let that limit you.</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>Fred, please address the topic (OT) to the extent you're capable.</p>

<p>There's no reason to snipe at my expression of my own thoughts. I'm sorry they're out of your comfort zone. I wonder how many other individuals have refrained from expressing their own unauthorized thoughts for that sort of reason?</p>

<p>If you actually care about the OT, do look into Giorgio Morandi's work (best as paintings rather than just online), along with his thoughts about the topic. If you know a serious and successful painter or painting scholar (not just photo teacher) she may help.</p>

<p>Morandi's not been mentioned here previously, but don't let that limit you: few important painters have ever been mentioned here. That's an OT in itself. </p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>Fred, please address the topic (OT) to the extent you're capable. There's no reason to snipe at my expression of my own thoughts. I wonder how many other individual thoughts have been crushed that way? </p>

<p>Do look into Giorgio Morandi's work (best as paintings rather than just online) and his thoughts about the topic. Maybe you know a serious and successful painter or arts scholar (as opposed to photo teacher) who can help. I realize he's not been mentioned here previously, but don't let that limit you.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"There's no reason to snipe at my expression of my own thoughts."</em></p>

<p>If you will practice what you preach, I won't snipe. Deal? </p>

[jtk]

<p>Anyone here with budding interest in "art" might want to look into Morandi. I think his work resonates interestingly with photography, which may be more of a "craft" according to HCB...Morandi is of central importance to the concept of "abstract."</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>...I'll add that my own interest in "art" is continuing to be "budding," I hope. </p>

<p>When people assert that their interest is beyond "budding" they often have shifted from learning and excitement to "authority." Authority is the enemy of excitement.</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Does anyone have an abstract of someone blowing smoke rings? </p>

<p>If not, <em>why not?!</em> (I'm trying to get into the spirit of this thread.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[jtk]

<p>Lannie, for help see Steve Murray's post above. Easily understood, covers plenty of ground.</p>

 

[arthur_gottschalk]

<p>I've come to believe that a photograph without an identifiable referent is generally a waste of time and could have been better done in another medium-- like watercolor, drawing or painting. </p>