Abstract Photography Forum is Launched!

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Can surrealism be considered abstract? </p>

<p>That's how I'm interpreting Michael's toy cat on what appears to be a thick black table top. It has a weird 50's retro lounge lizard vibe and style I find interesting and fresh, but I don't know if it can be considered abstract or surreal. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>There is a difference between decoration, which is the case of many so-called abstract photographic pictures of physical subjects, and that of abstract art. The latter is different from decoration in that its best examples conform to principals of harmony and contrast, equilibrium of masses, and assembly of point, line and form that are in balanced composition. The examples given to this point are, in my humble opinion, largely decorative. Which is still nice, if abstract art is not your objective</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Arthur, by introducing the question on "decoration", we are already starting the forum, because abstract photography can surely be decorative, if it is not something else, art. The forum is, I think not meant to address "fine art" only, just as all the other fora on Photonet.<br /> To illustrate what on Google is labelled "abstract photography" <a href="https://www.google.fr/search?q=abstract+photography&espv=2&biw=1440&bih=776&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6maDyp_DPAhWE1BoKHQCxDRQQ_AUIBigB">go here</a>. or <a href="https://www.saatchiart.com/photography/abstract">here on Saatchi art</a>. </p>

[photoriot]

<p>One definition might be to abstract some feature or quality of a photo to play with it. Whether it is still a photo must absolutely be decided, and soon before more escape!</p><div></div>

[AJHingel]

<p>Bill, I think we should all be open minded or we risk to end up in indefinite discussions.<br /> Let those who wish to introduce subject-matters and images for discussion in the forum decided, what they suggest as "abstract photography" with the same spirit the Street and Documentary Forum is open minded. <br /> As I mentioned above, there is a continuum of abstract/abstraction forms, that can be exploited between straight photography and pure abstract images. They should all be welcome, I believe.<br>

I would suggest to go to the POTW, which just has been introduced by Stanford and upload what ever you sugest to be relevant for an "abstract photography" forum..</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I am reminded that a straight photo can be purely abstract. Pure abstract photography is not limited to being accomplished in post processing.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Bill, I think we should all be open minded or we risk to end up in indefinite discussions.<br /> Let those who wish to introduce subject-matters and images for discussion in the forum decided, what they suggest as "abstract photography" with the same spirit the Street and Documentary Forum is open minded.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not seeing this thread limiting anyone's definition on what's considered abstract photography but more of a discussion considering different ways and ideas on creating abstracts. I like natural abstracts where I can tell that the subject is not synthetic and tells me the photographer saw and captured the "real" world differently or unconventionally by including something familiar for some grounding and referencing.</p>

<p>I said like, but didn't limit synthetically made abstracts.</p>

<p>And I don't see Michael's toy cat as decoration, but more as surrealism even though I can't tell if it's a synthetic composite or a telephoto compression shot of a living room with slat curtains in the background and it's this ambiguity that makes it even more interesting to me.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>For instance I see the image below as an abstract of a natural subject. It's not a Jackson Pollack by any stretch, but more representational.</p><div></div>

[AJHingel]

<p>Fred your reminding is right and justified, but yet it is not that simple.<br>

Straight photography, if it is defined as photos that represent what you see - in a photo, can of course be altered if you choose to limit your frame to elements that are detached from their context in the scene, or you can set the camera manually so, that the reality is registered in the camera already transformed into something unrecognizable . But most of that you can do in post-processing to. <br>

Tim, I agree with you.<br>

Concerning the use of the term "decoration" I don't see as constructive for our purpose. What is deco" for one, might be profound for another. Ref Rothko, Newmann, Malowitch, Mondrian etc </p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Anders Hingel. If you make that little white spot bigger it my be qualified as an abstract, in the present state, it is just a texture photograph for future use for a composite image as a texture.<br /> Michael Linder. Your attached large image is an abstract, no question about it. But, the thing on the bookshelf or what, is a funny photograph of something only, not a Surrealism, not an abstraction or abstract.<br /> What I seeing here, how little knowledge we know of art, or how strongly we attached ourselves, our visual mind to photography in the popular meaning as photography. Photography today evolved to a new art form, and as, it has to have some story, power, impact, feeling, emotion, and etc, etc. As I stated earlier, abstract is not an accidental creation of something, except nature, it is a created art style, mach more difficult to create then a plain landscape or other subject in photography. To enjoy any visual art style of many, is a question of individual test, which is relative.<br /> To highlight of the subject, I haw to mention the difficulty, and the artistic visual talent, technique required to create a good "surrealistic' image. In this web site, only a couple of photographers able to do it, to mention one of them, is, Ben Gossen, If I remember right the spelling of his name. <br /> This discussion going to be a Don Quijote style struggle, against the windmills story.<br>

Tim, it is a nice close-up of a leaf, but, not an abstract.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>"a question of individual test, which is relative" (Bela)<br /> Right ! No question, your image above, Bela, it is abstract without any doubt. Was it a photo of paint or of a painting ? or is it a digital creation ?<br /> My border-line abstracts I uploaded above was meant to help us in discussing what "abstract photography could include just like those of others. Do you suggest, that only pure abstracts like your upload above is relevant ? I find it too limited.<br /> Here is a pure geometrical abstract of mine.</p><div></div>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Hi Anders. The image above? It is a rusty side of a car in the junkyard, enhanced colors and contrast. Nothing more. The image just posted for critic is a tree, a real tree in a cemetery with a blank sky. Select mask and added a texture of colors, which I created for my texture folder for future use. No distortion of the elements or forms, increase contrast and saturation only.<br>

Your attached image is an abstract, the artistic quality is an other question.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Great ! So let's start enjoying, what comes up in this "Abstract Photography" forum.<br>

Why not start by the POTW, which is on-going ?</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p><strong>Jack Henry Pollock</strong> . He stretched the canvas on the floor and splashed paint on it. You think it is easy. His images of this style is in balance in color, contrast distribution of darker and lighter element in the composition and finally the canvas as an abstract image get in a nice balanced composition. I tried to copy his style and technic, and many other people, artist did, and failed most of the time.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>W</p><div></div>

[michaellinder]

<p>What I've seen and read in this thread so far is that abstract photographs seem to result from a variety of sources and techniques. As Fred's post of earlier indicates, it certainly is possible to create one simply and entirely by identifying suitable subject matter, seeing the camera, and activating the shutter. In such an instance, no manipulation may be required. </p>

<p>For everyone's information, friends of mine have a saltwater aquarium in their house. On the closed cover side of the tank sits a ceramic rendition of a cat with a fishing pole, a line, and a small fish on there hook as bait. I decided for the sake of fun to modify the cat's face; hence, my "toy cat" shot.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Bela, this is very fine use of photography to suggest a non-figurative aspect of the leaf while at the same time creating an emotional effect (fragility? isolation) and use of the frame, with the importance of the white background and the extended members of the leaf.</p>

<p>Anders, good links! I find few of the Google examples very interesting; most look too "mechanical" in approach and intent, with only a few (to my mind) of any reasonable artistic approach. But I am getting off the subject a bit and agree that the forum should not have any limits on the photographer and what he considers for himself abstract (rather than an attempt by the photographer at a more rigorous fine art description).</p>

<p>Your second link is good (especially, the texts below the varied examples). The concept of abstract photography as merely "rendering figurative objects unrecognizable" is probably the result most often seen. This form of "optical art" is interesting, but whether it is art is another thing. Probably seeking that artistic result is just as difficult as seeing art in most figurative photography on this site, or elsewhere. It happens, but only rarely I think. To be fair, it is likely not the objective of most and therefore, notwithstanding my desire for a more rigorous definition and examples of abstract photography, why should we require it here? There is no law about the limits of use of a Photoshop (or other) color saturation control or slider. </p>

<p>If we were to accept art as a goal perhaps the title "Optical art" might be good ("optical photography" would of course be an oxymoron). In the latter part of his life, his best friend Georges Clemenceau incited the Impressionist Monet to continue painting beyond his 70+ years, which he did for at least 10 years, in creating his extensive series of water lilies. While Monet described them as realistic, he was really portraying abstract renditions of color and light.</p>

<p>Perhaps abstract photographers might be tempted to create the sort of beauty that Monet did, while their subjects need not be fully detached from what might be perceived as reality. I personally find that a more interesting aim in photography than simply rendering the subject unrecognizable.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>No-one here around has proclaim, that Pollock's drip technic was easy. You are fighting ghost.<br>

You are not the only around, who has been working on abstract works and abstractions for years, me included.<br>

The only message I want to give is, that the present forum should be open to a wide range of technics and modes of expression, which in some way for the individual concerns "abstract photography".<br>

No ayatolas around to restrain creativity in the field.</p>

<p> </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>This discussion going to be a Don Quijote style struggle, against the windmills story.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bela, not if you start offering ways to help folks here communicate through abstracts on how to view and define their world in a unique way. As it is from what you've posted I don't see you helping in this regard. I see you being argumentative in placing limits on the definition of abstracts instead of offering instruction on how to come up with compelling looking abstracts. That doesn't move the discussion forward but makes you self appointed authority on the subject with no constructive information to support that. As it is I've learned nothing new from you.</p>

<p>And yes, I misspelled Pollack's name. It's Pollock. But I never said what he did was easy, so I don't know what you meant by "You think it is easy". How about changing your attitude and help us understand what and how an abstract photo is suppose to communicate. There are no rules, just really compelling looking images.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>To be fair, it is likely not the objective of most and therefore, notwithstanding my desire for a more rigorous definition and examples of abstract photography, why should we require it here? There is no law about the limits of use of a Photoshop (or other) color saturation control or slider.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just to balance out this argument over defining what an abstract is I'ld like to avoid what I've seen posted in the No Words forum Abstract topics where some think posting a simple unmanipulated shot of a shoe or any other object that is obviously representational lacking any ambiguity, mystery or forethought whether the person even knows what an abstract is.</p>

<p>I agree rigorous definition as a way to argue the point is what we should avoid here but, yes, I think there should be some limits in the form of a spectrum of sorts to define an abstract or else we'll be getting shots of flowers, people's feet, nose or any other hard line representational depiction of an object.</p>

<p>Let ambiguity be the barometer.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Tim, it is a nice close-up of a leaf, but, not an abstract.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So you don't see similarities to these abstracts?... http://www.google.com/search?q=georgia+o%27keeffe+abstracts&newwindow=1&biw=1552&bih=954&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT45Wt2PHPAhVFVyYKHcFDBpgQ_AUIBigB</p>

<p>I do.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Dear Tim. WE have a hell of a misunderstanding here...! Those images you posted as a (link) are graphic images created in the computer OR painted by talented artist ( Georgia O'Keeffe, etc. ) on canvas or any other medium. Yes, they are abstract. And they are beautiful abstract images.<br /> Because this site is a "Photographic" web site, we supposed to discus, argue, opinionated strictly, images, created with camera, thru the lens. Then, you can do what ever your imagination, artistic talent is dictating to edit, process, create an abstract or abstraction like image in the end.<br /> We don't talking about abstract here in general, it is abstract or abstraction as photography. Ar you arguing on that?<br /> -BLM.<br>

Btw, I like some of your abstract images.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>"we supposed to discus, argue, opinionated strictly, images, created with camera, thru the lens" (Bela)<br>

<br>

Bela, you can of course chose to express such a view, but I hope you can accept, that the history of "abstract photography" proves, that your approach is rather limited. <br>

Your own choice of expression when you create abstract images, can follow such a line, but others, me included, have chosen additional technics and approaches. <br>

I have just introduced a threat in the forum on: "Let's start by the beginning" which addresses exactly the point. </p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Pierre Dumas recently posted an image, entitled "walnut." To me, this is an excellent example of an abstract photograph with readily identifiable subject matter.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Dear Tim. WE have a hell of a misunderstanding here...! Those images you posted as a (link) are graphic images created in the computer OR painted by talented artist ( Georgia O'Keeffe, etc. ) on canvas or any other medium. Yes, they are abstract. And they are beautiful abstract images.<br /> Because this site is a "Photographic" web site, we supposed to discus, argue, opinionated strictly, images, created with camera, thru the lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bela, my understanding is that Abstract for me is a style or look to an image (doesn't matter the method made, i.e. photograph, sculpture, computer composite or painting on canvas) that indirectly and subtly communicates a wide range of spiritual and physical concepts such as beauty, mystery, ambiguity, a unique vision of the world, etc.</p>

<p>I'm not seeking compliments in my work here. Just trying to define with the leaf image the myriad of possibilities to convey the idea of Abstract and how it can be communicated using the photographic process digitally or with film.</p>

<p>For example (see below) this photographic image is not what I'ld consider an abstract concept of a leaf. It's too obvious that it's an impression of a leaf laid in wet concrete before it hardened. It's not subtle. It's not mysterious. It's more lyrical, but it's not an abstract.</p><div></div>