Contemporary Abstract Photographers

[Julie H]

<p>Hmmm ... Carey's aren't "color smears" for me, but I'll leave that alone.</p>

<p>What does "just look cool" mean? A feeling? What feeling? The same for all abstracts, or is the cool of one different from the cool of the next? How?</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Hmmm ... Carey's aren't "color smears" for me, but I'll leave that alone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK, my mistake in communicating what I saw, Julie. Could you just answer the question on what elements in her abstracts are talking to each other so I can understand what you mean?</p>

<p>It's like you're speaking in another language from the planet "Chandelier" where the only means of communication is telegrams. Earth to Chandelier I need some grounding here.</p>

<p><em>Hope you don't mind the ZZtop "Chandelier" reference from the song "Heaven, Hell or Houston" on their El Loco album.</em></p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Talking about composition and abstract images, it can sometimes be usefull to draw on some simple lessons. First some basic rules and then wa can all can play with breaking them.</p>

<p>http://paintings.name/abstract-art-lessons.php</p>

<p>Or listen to Debora Steward<br>

<p >and Matthew Collings</p>

<p >

[Julie H]

<p>Tim, "smears" is passive. Does Carey's color look passive to you?</p>

<p>I think the hardest thing about seeing abstract pictures is to stop making it so hard.</p>

<p>If your picture-reading habits get in the way, try sneaking up on your responses (word association; flavor, smell, taste tags just to push yourself one way or the other; how heavy is it or its parts?; what's going where?). The bad news is, we've had this kind of free association beaten out of us since we were kids and did it freely and flamboyantly. The good news is, your response isn't going to be "wrong." It's <em>yours</em> (which seems to terrify people).</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Anders, thanks very much for the YouTube linked videos.</p>

<p>I'm trying to do ten things at once this morning, but I looked at about half of the Matthew Collings video and just the beginning of the Debora Steward video. Both seem really good, from that glimpse, and should be helpful to anybody who wants to take the time to look. (I noticed that there are SIX from Collings, and I want to look at them all ... where to find the time ... )</p>

<p>The text link (paintings.name) seems not so helpful. I like that kind of dissection, but I think it probably makes a lot of people scream and leave the room.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>People running out screaming is very often a good reason to stay and read it twice - at least the first part with graphic illustrations.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Anders, let's not be greedy.</p>

<p>I think it's nothing short of a miracle that we've been given Tim who is willing and happy to say when and where he doesn't understand, and, even more miraculous (and wonderful!) to try out what is given. And to tell us that he doesn't agree (or stronger) with this or that, without every getting personal. I love it.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Phil, I love it ! <br>

Julie, I agree. Fairly seldom here on Photonet, where back-clapping is mostly the rule of the game.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Also very good, in my view and definitely an abstract. <br>

Same abstract graphics below.</p><div></div>

[AJHingel]

<p>Phil, I agree with much of what you write when you use formulations like: <em>"when one is squinting ones eyes to render the world in abstract shapes and forms"</em> <br>

May be it is useful to go back to the various definitions of "abstract art" in order to clarify, why such images as those above can be said to be "abstract".<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Abstract art uses a visual language of shape, form, colour and line to create a composition which may exist with a degree of independence from visual references in the world."<br>

"Abstract art images are "abstracted" from real life images"<br>

"Abstract art is not completely non-representational art. In fact, abstract art involves analysis, embellishment or deconstruction of existing natural forms."</p>

</blockquote>

 

But, it should of course be added, that the Russian painter, Wassily Kandinsky, during the very first years of the 20th century is said to have invented "absolute abstract" art: Artistic works, completely non-representational art , consisting of lyrical arrangements of shapes, lines and other elements with few visual analogues or references, if any, to the known reality we see around us.

 

He did it, according to his own writings (1911) with the ambition of painting music.He had synesthesia, is has been said.

 

Kandisky brought his abstractions into the Bauhaus movement in Germany (1922) from which it spread. But also Kandinsky came to his absolute abstract art through a long series of abstractions as in his series of "<a href="http://www.wassilykandinsky.net/images/works/68.jpg">Improvisation</a>" paintings (1909-1917), where he painted reality, mostly landscapes and cityscapes, as seen from his inner nature".

 

 

My point is, that "abstract art" cannot, at least historically, be limited to "absolute abstract" art. It covers various degrees of independence from visual references in the world where reality is deconstructed into more more abstract visions.

[Julie H]

<p>"It covers various degrees ... " No it doesn't. <em>What is not abstract is not abstract</em>. Yes art can be any and every mix of 'abstract-and,' but the abstract is still the abstract and the 'and' is still the not-abstract.</p>

<p>I'm starting to feel like Sisyphus (and his boulder would be all you silent readers who are enjoying the daily roll).</p>

<p>Let me try another tack:</p>

<p>Instrumental music is abstract. You hear <em>sound</em> -- which is expressive or descriptive of [whatever].<br>

Vocal music is not abstract. You hear a <em>person</em> -- who is making sound which is expressive of [something that involves a person].</p>

<p>Non-figurative art is abstract. You see <em>light</em> -- which is expressive or descriptive of [whatever].<br>

Figurative art is not abstract. You see <em>things</em> -- which are making or are made of light and which are in turn expressive of [something via those things].</p>

[Julie H]

<p>[<em>pretending to be Anders -- which he won't like</em> ... ]</p>

<p><em>Anders</em>: So, dear Julie, is <a href="https://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/bertsch_spermatozoaires.jpg">this picture</a> by Auguste Adolphe Bertsch, <em><a href="https://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/bertsch_spermatozoaires.jpg">Spermatozoaires vivants de l'homme</a></em>, 1853-57 abstract or figurative?</p>

<p><em>Julie</em>: Who cares! I love it! Plus it's not Modern, so I don't have to answer you in this Modern thread. :)</p>

<p><em>Anders</em>: Okay, then how about Gursky's <em>Bangkok</em> series, especially <em>Bangkok VIII</em>, given that <em>Bangkok</em>s I through VII are probably <em>not</em> abstract by your definition? [you'll need to search the images for yourself]</p>

<p><em>Julie</em>: I'm thinking. I know what <em>you're</em> thinking. You're thinking that the water both is and is not abstract ... But I would say, never both at the same time. :)</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Julie, it sounds like "Brexit is Brexit" type of talk, if I may refer to something very European. "Abstract is abstract" does not mean anything after all the different definitions and viewpoints, that up till now have been discussed.</p>

<p>Try to explain what your own images, like the <a href="/photo/13554913">Biographic</a> series, are for you. According to your restrictive definition, they are certainly not abstract. According to me, they most certainly are. I would believe that most viewers would see them as abstract compositions despite the fact that they only show recognizable elements.</p>

<p>I would say the same for these of mine: "<a href="/photo/14987252">Abstract of a leaf</a>", or this abstract of "<a href="/photo/15088357&size=lg">herbs</a>" or this of <a href="/photo/14967593&size=lg">Paris</a> or <a href="/photo/14974832&size=lg">this</a>. They are all abstract according to me.</p>

<p>Maybe we have reached the point, where we better agree to disagree on a definition. Instead, I would suggest, we should concentrate on sharing and discussing what we are doing or finding of interesting examples of "abstract photography".</p>

[Julie H]

<p>"According to me, they most certainly are." Good grief. My things are spoof, allegory, satire, parody, fantasy, or fairy tale, but abstract they are not.<br>

<em> </em><br>

What they are spoofing is the absurdity of trying to portray the abstract figuratively. How ridiculous it is to try and find geometry in nature, for example.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Instrumental music is abstract. You hear <em>sound</em> -- which is expressive or descriptive of [whatever].<br>

Vocal music is not abstract. You hear a <em>person</em> -- who is making sound which is expressive of [something that involves a person].</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="

AND MEL RESPOND</a> to show that hard distinctions can be blurred in any medium.</p>

<p>P is not not-P works best in logic class, not as well in art class.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>"Good grief" etc (Julie)<br>

And yet, your abstractions from nature is indeed "abstract" whether you call it: "spoof, allegory, satire, parody, fantasy, or fairy tale" according to the three "definitions" of abstract art I gave you above: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Abstract art uses a visual language of shape, form, colour and line to create a composition which may exist with a degree of independence from visual references in the world."<br />"Abstract art images are "abstracted" from real life images"<br />"Abstract art is not completely non-representational art. In fact, abstract art involves analysis, embellishment or deconstruction of existing natural forms."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But of course you are free to choose another definition. <br>

I think Fred, above, is right. <br>

</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>"Good grief" etc (Julie)<br>

And yet, your abstractions from nature is indeed "abstract" whether you call it: "spoof, allegory, satire, parody, fantasy, or fairy tale" according to the three "definitions" of abstract art I gave you above: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Abstract art uses a visual language of shape, form, colour and line to create a composition which may exist with a degree of independence from visual references in the world."<br />"Abstract art images are "abstracted" from real life images"<br />"Abstract art is not completely non-representational art. In fact, abstract art involves analysis, embellishment or deconstruction of existing natural forms."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But of course you are free to choose another definition. <br>

I think Fred, above, is right. <br>

</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Interesting.</p>

<p>Fred and Anders hear only music in Fred's clip. I hear Mel and Ella making music.</p>

<p>Anybody else only hear music without any awareness of person(s) in Fred's clip?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Julie,</p>

<p>I hear Mel and Ella making music. My disagreement is with the distinction you're making in saying that instrumental music is abstract and vocal music is not abstract because supposedly only vocal music includes a person. When I hear <a href="https://vimeo.com/90907436">THIS</a>, I hear a person playing just like I hear a person singing when I hear Ella. The involvement of a person doesn't negate abstraction. If there's a distinction to be made in music (and, as I said, I don't find hard distinctions useful here), it would be that music without lyrics may often come across as more abstract than music with lyrics, the lyrics providing more narrative and representation than the music itself. (And there are lots of exceptions, many more than the obvious exception of something like <em>Mairzy Doats.</em>)</p>

<p>Your distinction between figurative and non-figurative falls apart along similar lines of being too dogmatic and drawing too hard lines. In figurative examples of German Expressionism, for example, not seeing abstractly would miss much of the point. There's a level on which even a representational German Expressionist photo or painting operates as an abstract, IMO. </p>

[Julie H]

<p>'Seeing abstractly' is not abstract art.</p>

<p>Can you point to figurative content that <em>is</em> abstract? Please link.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Are they? How so?</p>

<p>(I know what Stieglitz said about the set.)</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Julie, I don't understand your rigidity in these discussions. </p>

<p>The only frame, within which I can find room for your interpretation of what Abstract Art is, would be in the frame of some kind of linear evolution of abstraction throughout the history of art (Turner and forward) which one day in the beginning of the 50's, I believe it was, somewhere in New York, it has been argued (Greenberg), ultimate pure "abstract art" was born and since that very day anything else seized to be abstract. </p>

<p>Art does not have place for reference to orthodoxy. Art is there to break walls and question rules and authority. </p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>"'Seeing abstractly' is not abstract art."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes it is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Can you point to figurative content that <em>is</em> abstract? Please link."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've provided links below. But first, it's important to look at this well-known <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Cup_or_faces_paradox.svg/600px-Cup_or_faces_paradox.svg.png">FIGURE-GROUND IMAGE.</a> You might say it's two faces and you'd be right. You might say it's a vase and you'd be right. That's because it's both. And sometimes, it's just black and white shapes. It doesn't have to be either.</p>

<p>Photos can be looked at more or less abstractly. The first four easily lend themselves to being abstract. Even with the photo of O'Keeffe, the last link below, as figurative as it may seem, there are times when I see it as an abstract. That's just the way it can be when I experience visual imagery. And with Mondrian's <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Piet_Mondrian,_1942_-_Broadway_Boogie_Woogie.jpg">BROADWAY BOOGIE WOOGIE</a>, on the other hand, as abstract as it may seem, there are times when I simply see the streets and traffic in Manhattan, not to mention hearing a jazzy trumpet.<br /> <br /> <a href="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/10/d6/0f/10d60fe6d85c92eb8afd8452883691f9.jpg">Martin Munkacsi, <em>Bambini</em></a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.artnet.com/WebServices/images/ll00200lld47PFFgOjECfDrCWvaHBOceND/gyorgy-kepes-street-scene-from-above-electrical-wires.jpg">Gyorgy Kepes, <em>Street Scene from Above Electrical Wires</em></a></p>

<p><a href="http://65.media.tumblr.com/f001ddf925a6c313a83cc07837e130e3/tumblr_o5a0mbsGic1qzi2aeo4_540.jpg">Gyorgy Kepes, <em>Without Title</em></a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.artvalue.com/photos/auction/0/50/50482/umbo-umbehr-otto-maximilian-19-unheimliche-strasse-2935763.jpg">Otto Umbehr (Umbo), <em>Unheimliche Strasse</em></a><br /> <br /> And finally:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.designsponge.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/StieglitzOKeeffe_Wikimedia.jpg">Alfred Stieglitz, <em>Portrait of Georgia O'Keeffe</em></a><br /> <em> . . .</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Only conscious man can mirror the universal: he can consciously become one with the universal and so can consciously transcend the individual.</em> <br />—Mondrian</p>

</blockquote>

[Julie H]

<p>What you've written has almost nothing to do with abstract specifically. It's simply about how things are seen. <em>Any</em>things. </p>

<p>I can't think of any more ways to explain this. I'd recommend looking at the links Anders supplied above:</p>

<p><a href="http://paintings.name/abstract-art-lessons.php" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://paintings.name/abstract-art-lessons.php</a></p>

<p>Or <a href="

to Debora Steward</a><br /> <br>

<a href="

Matthew Collings</a></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Julie, you might want to stop thinking that you have to "explain this." No one here seems to misunderstand what you're saying. We just disagree. All you have to do is accept that. Or . . . obviously . . . not. It's an unfortunately very typical but I find also very odd type of thinking that says that people who disagree must not understand and if only it is explained better they will agree. That's not the way it works.</p>