Are photos capable of abstraction?

[q.g._de_bakker]

Every single photo is an abstraction.

What remains to be discussed is not whether, but to what degree. And even that is a rather pointless discussion.

[inoneeye]

For the sake of clarity: it’s not about abstract photos, but about photos that convey abstract messages.

Oh sorry I misunderstood. I thought it was also about the label 'abstract' as well as communicating about abstracts by way of using literal objects.

 

In most cases I find it very hard to show my layered, complex perception of reality, which requires abstraction from the immediately perceivable depiction of the subject.

 

I think that it is a good choice to think and communicate in series or a well edited collection. Singular images are limited by default to shorter statements. But if they succeed in opening a door to the viewers imagination they can become much more expansive. Books can be very good at conveying multi layered and more complex narratives although most choose to keep to a narrow thematic focus.

 

I have not done this just by myself but have sought feedback in open settings and had to realize that I may think that I express a certain concept by my photographs but that’s just me who thinks this.

 

I would love to see some examples. I have often been surprised at responses I have gotten that at first appeared contrary to what I was thinking about a specific image or series. Sometimes taking time to reword my questions and also sorting out the subjective opinions I find we often are seeing a similar language. Much like reading the same book but having a very different reaction. It simply affects us differently. I like a dark stormy day it makes me feel at ease or energized & intrigued. Another person just thinks it is gloomy and depressing or discomforting. But we are looking at the same sky. So I can shoot and pp to suggest high energy and intrigue or maybe even gentleness and contemplative... abstracts. Now it is my sky. High energy and intrigue may put someone else off but that is also subjective. But if well done and you ask them to describe what they see it will most often find alignment with what you wanted to communicate

[samstevens]

had to realise that I may think that I express a certain concept by my photographs but that’s just me who thinks this. In most cases I find it very hard to show my layered, complex perception of reality, which requires abstraction from the immediately perceivable depiction of the subject.

A laudable process that can manifest in various ways. Expressing a certain concept doesn't necessarily mean that concept gets communicated and doesn't necessarily mean that concept needs to get communicated. Using complex concepts as a motivation for photos is one thing. Directly communicating those concepts is another.

 

Since we're talking about abstraction, here's one way to look at it. A fairly literal and distinct concept or even a looser one may be at play when I consider making a series of photos. But that may not necessarily get concretely through to a viewer and it may not need to. Conceptual art can be thought-provoking without dictating the thoughts it provokes. Perhaps a direction will be suggested. How specific you want to be in your own conceptualization as photographer and in what you communicate to a viewer can vary greatly.

 

You can attempt to focus a viewer more or less and you can succeed to some degree. What you can't necessarily do is control the viewer. So, when expressing concepts you're not God putting Concepts X, Y, and Z into a viewer's head. I think it's often a somewhat different sort of connection than that. It's different from writing a philosophical paper.

[samstevens]

Hey, was writing while inoneeye was also posting. I'll go back and read what inoneeye said and respond after a few hours of sleep ...

[za33photo]

Communication is one of the most difficult and frustrating activities of the human race.

[je ne regrette rien]

@inoneeye , @samstevens

Lots of food for thought, I must say and good points that open new perspectives. I just need some time to put them properly into context.

[samstevens]

It simply affects us differently.

I appreciate this observation. Photographer and viewer or two different viewers may understand or at least be stimulated by a photo similarly yet react differently. It's why "art is subjective" is both right and wrong. The reactions are usually subjective, but there are often commonalities that get lost because of the strength and intimacy of those personal reactions, not to mention the human desire to elevate individuality and subjectivity. I think part of what you're saying is that you may be communicating something fairly universal while still getting varying particular responses.

I may think that I express a certain concept by my photographs but that’s just me who thinks this. In most cases I find it very hard to show my layered, complex perception of reality

When it comes to more conceptual work and series, titles, accompanying captions, or an introduction are often used. Sometimes, the concept can be referenced verbally and described or just hinted at to whatever extent feels appropriate.

 

Conceptual photos and series can act as illustrations of a stated and/or elaborated concept. I think sometimes it's advised to do this, depending on the concept and the overall project.

 

Or the photos themselves may cover a lot of conceptual territory which they do communicate, and a title may give viewers just the nudge they need to get into the "frame" of mind to understand the concept being explored.

 

Or, of course, if a photographer prefers simply to express the concepts in either a straightforward or a more elusive and roundabout way, strictly visually and with no words, those options are also available.

 

______________________________

 

When it comes to more conceptual work, and even non-conceptual work, I find it satisfying sometimes to feel like I have a secret. The viewer doesn't have to literally "get" everything. There's magic in my knowing things the viewer does not. That doesn't mean the viewer isn't getting a full experience. Sometimes, the not knowing aspect of being a viewer allows their imagination more room to expand. And having a secret gives me something precious because I may sense that even though that secret remains unknown, it's having an effect.

[mikemorrell]

This discussion is probably way above my head. From the thread so far, I've picked up the ideas that 'abstract photos can either be a form of 'abstract art' or an abstr

[inoneeye]

Abstraction. The bare bones of what I have taken from the discussion is the sharing of thoughts about conveying abstract ideas by what is essentially a medium that relies on concrete objects.. Edited February 11, 2022 by inoneeye

[mikemorrell]

My 15 minutes have expired, so in addition

 

...abstraction.

 

From the thread, I have the impression that 'abstract photography' takes 22 main forms:

- abstract photography as an art form,

- abstract photography as a way of portraying 'real life' in an abstract (perhaps symbolic) way

 

These 2 forms are IMHO completely different.

[inoneeye]

I agree that the abstract genre is a distinction that may stand independently from the consideration of conveying 'real life' thoughts or ideas by obscuring the concrete object. But often they overlap. The abstract genre can be used to tap into and to communicate, suggest those very same thoughts less literally. Edited February 11, 2022 by inoneeye

[samstevens]

Abstraction. The bare bones of what I have taken from the discussion is the sharing of thoughts about conveying abstract ideas by what is essentially a medium that relies on concrete objects..

Good summation ...

 

Some time before the pandemic, I was mugged, though not badly injured. The next day, I went out with some overwhelming feelings I wanted to get off my chest. It didn't much matter to me whether any viewers would "get" those particular feelings I was expressing, but I was satisfied with the abstraction presented and the array of responses I got.

 

I was inspired by the mugging and used a very literally concrete (brutalist) structure in my neighborhood, the Glen Park rapid transit station, designed by Corbett, Spackman, and Born and built in 1972.

 

Would love to see others' photos that speak to themes in this thread.

Edited February 11, 2022 by samstevens

[samstevens]

[q.g._de_bakker]

My 15 minutes have expired, so in addition

 

...abstraction.

 

From the thread, I have the impression that 'abstract photography' takes 22 main forms:

- abstract photography as an art form,

- abstract photography as a way of portraying 'real life' in an abstract (perhaps symbolic) way

 

These 2 forms are IMHO completely different.

I disagree. They are one and the same. A photo, just like any utterance, is a medium that conveys something that is not literal, not a summation of all there is to see. Utterances do not differ in that from observations: the photo above shows, one would say, a building's roof construct. A 'matter of fact', 'objective' (terrible concept), purely documentary, 'real life' record. Ask the pigeons in that photo if they agree. There is no 'real life'. There's only 'our life'. An abstraction in itself.

The difference you outline is the difference in the clarity of a message. Is it put in a vocabulary that is clearly understood, because it uses well understood signs? Or is it put in a more obscure, harder to decipher vocabulary ("symbolism". A way to suggest something esoteric, that helps distinguish between mere mortals and the ones in the know. A social, not an epistemic, thing).

And not just the vocabulary, but also the message itself differs, from more explicit to more vague. A precise message, for instance v. a raw emotion.

But that difference between abstract and real is not real. It's a misconception.

[je ne regrette rien]

Abstraction. The bare bones of what I have taken from the discussion is the sharing of thoughts about conveying abstract ideas by what is essentially a medium that relies on concrete objects..

Precisely.

 

One of the practical implications of this reasoning for example is that when I will present a portfolio to a reader, I will avoid providing her/him "the noose to hang me". In practice they ask me what I want to communicate with a set of pictures and they tell me why it does not work the way I conceived it. The next time I will engage in a photographic reading I will refuse to provide any information beyond the photo set itself.

 

@mikemorrell: the art and photography discourse I believe would open up a different, even if related, discussion.

So would the connection between art and abstraction, which may be true or not. Piero Manzoni's "Artist's S@4it", ninety canned pieces, are considered conceptual art and not abstract at all, even though nobody would dare opening one of them to check what is really inside the can. Btw, can #69 was sold in 2016 for Euro 275,000.00. And that's just one example.

Edited February 11, 2022 by je ne regrette rien

[samstevens]

In practice they ask me what I want to communicate with a set of pictures and they tell me why it does not work the way I conceived it. The next time I will engage in a photographic reading I will refuse to provide any information beyond the photo set itself.

Are you sure you want to give viewers that power? You could simply offer the noose without also offering them your neck. When they tell you why it doesn't work, listen carefully because they may, in fact, be telling you why it does!

 

Also, with viewers who ask questions, which I love, by the way, I find myself sticking to talking about what motivated me rather than how I interpret one of my photos. I prefer to hear their interpretations and responses. And that way, I don't get caught up in the measuring up game or worrying about a literal connection.

[inoneeye]

When they tell you why it doesn't work, listen carefully because they may, in fact, be telling you why it does!

Yeah! that's what I was saying at 1:11.

Oh alright :p you did say it better ... more succinct. and it is good advice.

Edited February 11, 2022 by inoneeye

[je ne regrette rien]

Are you sure you want to give viewers that power?

 

It's a complex issue. Of course we all, and I, want to have some gratifying feedback on the photographs we produce. That said, and going beyond the mere aspect of gratification, my purpose is to try and succeed in establishing a connection between myself and the viewer by means of a set of photographs. You will know that it is not comparable at with "likes" that are currently hunted on social media.

 

This connection is carried by the visual message I want to construct and convey and here the issue of visual language, abstraction and reality kicks in. I am engaged in learning how to use the photos in a series to obtain a certain syntax and a certain meaning, reasonably clear to myself first of all.

 

And then I can deal with the beholders and the hard fact that "one sees what one knows" and propose to my sincere visual message convincingly.

 

To do this, and that is why I muse about abstraction - among other issues - I need to find a way to build my multi-layered perception of reality in my picture. The only way to do it is to identify, compose and present those elements, which represent these layers, in the photographs I put together.

 

PS I find it almost impossible to succeed in this unless I have a prior concept and idea I am pursuing when making the pictures.

[Allen Herbert]

Let's go bang back to earth.

 

The big million dollar question are photos really about realty? Or, the photographers perception of reality? Or, does the photograph take a life of its own, and form a reality from the chaos of reality. Do we then we then add our chaos of reality from our very limited perceptions.

 

Quantum Physics tells us, that the only reality is what we perceive; a very basic for simple minds. Think of a Ants understanding of the greater whole.. In a sense everything is abstract ,as we live in a tiny place, with very little understanding of the whole.

 

I always think, that those among us who are recognized as the Greats of Art, can see a little bit deeper, and further around those corners of perceptions of reality.

Edited February 11, 2022 by Allen Herbert

[vilk_inc]

in every non-trivial sense, all photographs are abstract--by the very definition of the process

 

those that claim not to be, can only do so by convention, and only on the strength of reasonable consensus

 

:cool:

[Ricochetrider]

Hmmm… interesting discussion. I really like the response by @Supriyo who pretty well expressed what I was initially thinking.

[Ricochetrider]

Let's go bang back to earth.

 

The big million dollar question are photos really about realty? Or, the photographers perception of reality? Or, does the photograph take a life of its own, and form a reality from the chaos of reality. Do we then we then add our chaos of reality from our very limited perceptions.

 

Quantum Physics tells us, that the only reality is what we perceive; a very basic for simple minds. Think of a Ants understanding of the greater whole.. In a sense everything is abstract ,as we live in a tiny place, with very little understanding of the whole.

 

I always think, that those among us who are recognized as the Greats of Art, can see a little bit deeper, and further around those corners of perceptions of reality.

 

agreed, well stated.

 

 

in every non-trivial sense, all photographs are abstract--by the very definition of the process

 

those that claim not to be, can only do so by convention, and only on the strength of reasonable consensus

 

:cool:

 

Yes, also well stated.

[samstevens]

Of course we all, and I, want to have some gratifying feedback on the photographs we produce

Gratifying doesn't have to entail agreement.

my purpose is to try and succeed in establishing a connection between myself and the viewer by means of a set of photographs

Connection doesn't have to entail agreement either.

the issue of visual language, abstraction and reality kicks in. I am engaged in learning how to use the photos in a series to obtain a certain syntax and a certain meaning

Yes. I understand this and it's a worthy goal. I'm just not sure that getting feedback from viewers is necessarily going to help a lot. Sure, to some extent it will, but viewers are all over the map in terms of the depth of their perceptions, the care they put into viewing, and often having a desire to make your photos their own at all costs. A lot of viewers are less interested in what you're trying to tell them than in the stories they want to tell themselves when they look at your picture. That's neither wrong nor right. It just seems to be the way it is.

 

When you learned to write, how much feedback from friends did you seek vs. how much time you spent reading and being instructed by your early teachers, who hopefully had some expertise?

 

In any case, a lot of learning about what your viewers perceive involves, as inoneeye at first alluded to, reading between the lines ... and perhaps even getting out from between those lines as well. Be careful of words when assessing and contemplating pictures.

[za33photo]

Aaah-------What is "Real" , and what is "Not Real" , that is the question.

(Sorry Willie)

:).

[samstevens]

Aaah-------What is "Real" , and what is "Not Real" , that is the question.

(Sorry Willie)

:).

“There's no reality except the one contained within us. That's why so many people live an unreal life. They take images outside them for reality and never allow the world within them to assert itself.” —Hermann Hesse

 

When it comes to photography, I tend to think that accuracy or fidelity to objective fact may not be as significant as expressing emotional truths.