Are photos capable of abstraction?

[je ne regrette rien]

There is a serious confusion present here of 'abstract' with 'symbol(ic).

Are the two concepts mutually exclusive?

Can something abstract be symbolic?

Can something symbolic be abstract?

 

I hope not to go off-topic.

[samstevens]

I would simply say life moves on. inspired by the river.

And, depending on how the river, its more stationary banks, and the trusted, long-surviving basilica are handled, there might be room for further comment on the river.

 

An old Greek dude is known for having probably the most famous take on a river ...

 

"On those stepping into rivers staying the same other and other waters flow." OR "You can't step into the same river twice."

 

So, there's a sense in which the river says life moves on and also a sense in which the river says some things remain the same. The waters continue to flow even as the river remains the same river.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Are the two concepts mutually exclusive?

Can something abstract be symbolic?

Can something symbolic be abstract?

 

I hope not to go off-topic.

Is a photo ever not abstract?

No.

[inoneeye]

First came the eyes and the impression and then the photograph. Technically, I would do some things differently now, but the picture would not be significantly different.

That leaves post processing and presentation for any refinement and messaging. And that can have significant influence. As some old dude once said "there might be room for further comment"

[je ne regrette rien]

Is a photo ever not abstract?

No.

Ok.

adjective

/ˈabstrakt/

1. existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
   "abstract concepts such as love or beauty".
   

A printed photograph is a physical object and per definition not abstract. A digital photo, I’m not sure.

A photograph is a bi-dimensional representation of a tri-dimensional object.

Therefore, we can agree, a photo is an abstraction of the object it shows.

Metaphorically, an abstraction of the abstraction would be Magritte’s “ceci n’est pas une pipe”.

 

Now, let’s take a different angle on this.

 

I live in a real world (ok, just as an hypothesis :D) and I perceive a feeling of abstract nature: power, injustice, compassion, in this case decay and magnificence.

 

Does a photograph lend itself to represent directly such a feeling of abstract nature? I would say No.

 

Can I photograph love? Power? Injustice? Magnificence? Not directly. I can only find and object and use an abstracting medium (a photograph) to signify the symbolic meaning I perceive (the magnificence and power emanated by the Dome of the Basilica of St. Peter).

 

But the photograph, although abstracting, by no means can guarantee the signification of my initial feeling of abstract nature.

 

As shown by the multifaceted reactions to my attempt to represent decay and magnificence.

 

My initial formulation, I agree, was a bit rough. Maybe I’m more clear now.

[je ne regrette rien]

That leaves post processing and presentation for any refinement and messaging. And that can have significant influence. As some old dude once said "there might be room for further comment"

Sure! Or, maybe, I just need more photos. Or use a diptych.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Ok.

 

A printed photograph is a physical object and per definition not abstract. A digital photo, I’m not sure.

A photograph is a bi-dimensional representation of a tri-dimensional object.

Therefore, we can agree, a photo is an abstraction of the object it shows.

Metaphorically, an abstraction of the abstraction would be Magritte’s “ceci n’est pas une pipe”.

A printed photograph is a bit of paper (what is that, paper?) and or plastic, with smudges in another tint or colour on it.

That is the physical thing. "Printed" is not part of it at all.

 

The difference between the photo and the physical thing is not directly about being abstract or not. Though it is related.

Abstract is what we take away from the multitude of sensory inputs. When you see a photo (and we do not need to talk about whether or how they would be representations), your perception of it does not include every single detail. You take away abstract concepts, like building, people, tree, son, etc. You can, or maybe you can't, attach labels to it that identify it. Such and such building. The neighbour's son. Et cetera. Doesn't change a thing re abstract or not.

There is no photo that is not abstract.

 

And i refer to what i said earlier about degrees.

 

Conveying things that we perhaps cannot see, like love. Supposedly non-physical things, with a recognizable shape and colour. But we can see things like that. We can recognize love, and such, else we would not know these things. Even though love has no shape and colour, texture, etc. itself.

So how about conveying things we can see and recognize using signs that are not the ones we need to recognize them? That's symbolism. A learned language that substitutes other things for the familiar things we recognize such 'abstract' things by.

[je ne regrette rien]

There is no photo that is not abstract.

I don’t dispute this, and I agree. Maybe I don’t write clearly or you don’t read carefully.

 

What I dispute is the capability of a photograph (an abstract object) to immediately and unambiguously convey an abstract concept.

 

For example:

In a photograph a lover’s kiss and mouth-to-mouth respiration may result as exactly the same. It’s the contextualisation of the cultural setting and of the situation presented that makes the viewer conclude that the former is an expression of love and the latter an attempt to save a life. The photograph itself may not help at all.

[AlanKlein]

In the foreground there is an abandoned wreck (decay) from a previous flood.

In the background you see the Basilica of St. Peter, the most important church of the Holy See and the Vatican State and one of the largest and tallest in the world (magnificence).

Physical and unmodifiable elements are

• the river between them;
  
• the distance between them;
  
• the banks and trees along the river that guide the eye towards the rather small background.
  

A painter could have portrayed them closer one to the other, reduce the prominence of the river, increase the size and visibility of the wreck, moved the perspective more to the right, disregarding the potentiality of wet feet (and more). I could have used a longer lens, reducing the width, but would have lost parts of the wreck in the foreground. But the literal characteristic of the picture would have remained more or less the same.

 

I could have chosen another picture, if I could have found one, but it would have been a completely different one.

The point of the picture is lost if you have to explain it. On the other hand, a picture like this could be part of an essay on urban decay and pollution. Then the picture compliments the essay and vice versa.

[AlanKlein]

Which is why you'll never get viewers to utter just the "right" words you may have in mind when making or presenting a photo. The words a viewer uses are likely going to be inadequate and not necessarily cover the range of response and relationship to the photo. And the visual language a photographer is using can certainly be aided by words and described with words, but the words won't give the whole story, so there is no one-to-one correspondence between concepts understood/described and pictures presented.

 

Transcendence plays a key role in art and photography, where so many things are what they are and also are not what they are and are what they are not.

A good photo can have different interpretations. Who's to say the viewer has to "see" what the shooter saw, imagined, or felt?

[movingfinger]

Here's a relevant and timely artist's call from the Southeast Center for Photography in Greenville SC. The upcoming exhibit is "The Abstract Photograph" and here's the prospectus with their version of a definition:

 

The SE Center for Photography is looking for non-representational imagery, though it can be from found objects in nature, man made or figurative works. We're seeking images that do not attempt to represent external reality, but seek to achieve its effect using shapes, forms, colors, and texture. Black-and-white or color, analog, digital or antique processes, photographers of all skill levels and locations are welcome.

 

You have till the end of the month (Feb) to submit, here's the link.

[q.g._de_bakker]

I don’t dispute this, and I agree. Maybe I don’t write clearly or you don’t read carefully.

 

What I dispute is the capability of a photograph (an abstract object) to immediately and unambiguously convey an abstract concept.

 

For example:

In a photograph a lover’s kiss and mouth-to-mouth respiration may result as exactly the same. It’s the contextualisation of the cultural setting and of the situation presented that makes the viewer conclude that the former is an expression of love and the latter an attempt to save a life. The photograph itself may not help at all.

Yes, a photo can. Photos do nothing else but.

 

You're talking about clarity. Something else.

 

No two horses are alike. We use an abstract 'idea', horse, to say whether something might be a horse or not. But there will always be a grey zone, in which we cannot be sure enough.

That is not about being abstract, or being able to convey abstract concepts.

[je ne regrette rien]

Yes, a photo can. Photos do nothing else but.

 

You're talking about clarity. Something else.

 

No two horses are alike.

 

Sorry, this game is being played all the time on social platforms: throwing in ambiguous and undefined terms and statements and trying to derail conversations in the direction of nothing.

 

If you think this conversation is without grounds, you are certainly not obliged to take part in it. Goodbye.

[je ne regrette rien]

The point of the picture is lost if you have to explain it. On the other hand, a picture like this could be part of an essay on urban decay and pollution. Then the picture compliments the essay and vice versa.

This picture was explained because it serves the purpose of the discussion here. It is not necessarily the best photographic example at hand.

 

I must say that this thread provided me an answer on why a set of photographs is a better way to present the various aspects of a subject: several photos on several related points of view on the same subject can provide different details, without requiring to squeeze all the details in the same frame, which can be challenging.

[samstevens]

I must say that this thread provided me an answer on why a set of photographs is a better way to present the various aspects of a subject: several photos on several related points of view on the same subject can provide different details, without requiring to squeeze all the details in the same frame, which can be challenging.

I think another key to series work is that it can provide context and reinforcement, which can be very important. Seeing your photo as an isolated example is a very different experience than seeing it with accompanying photos that express similar feelings or convey similar concepts. When a theme is simply presented in isolation, it can easily be missed, as you saw happen in this thread. When it's repeated with variations from photo to photo, it can zero the viewer in on intent and purpose.

The point of the picture is lost if you have to explain it.

I don't find this to be true. Well, sure, it's true sometimes. But I've read explanations of photos that increase my understanding and appreciation of them. There's no one size fits all and no rule about how a photo must be presented. It's clear to me when an explanation is substituting for good photography, which does happen. But explanations don't always do that.

[inoneeye]

What I dispute is the capability of a photograph (an abstract object) to immediately and unambiguously convey an abstract concept.

That moves the goalposts for me. That makes me think of an abstract concept on the same level of an object. The object is in front of your eyes and you can choose to render it as faithfully as possible. but the concept is not manifest until you make it so by suggestion. And the expectation that you can present an abstract idea as clearly as an object is expecting too much of the creator and viewer imo.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Sorry, this game is being played all the time on social platforms: throwing in ambiguous and undefined terms and statements and trying to derail conversations in the direction of nothing.

 

If you think this conversation is without grounds, you are certainly not obliged to take part in it. Goodbye.

Do not play games, accusing others of playing games, je ne etc.

You don't like, or do not understand, or do not agree? Fine. Just say so.

But then, you're just a troll. Let's see: which one of the regular PNet trolls has been absent for the last weeks or so...

[inoneeye]

In other words i agree you j n r r that conveying an abstract does not communicate as directly as presenting an objects physical characteristics.

[samstevens]

It is about how photographs convey abstract messages.

Conveying something abstract will often be done more indirectly than directly, an intentional beating around the bush, if you will.

 

In this way, speaking photographically, what you hide and how you hide it may be as important as what you reveal.

 

A lot of abstraction comes with a lack of completeness or context. A picture of a drainpipe is relatively concrete if I can identify it as such. If, on the other hand, I get close enough to just catch some of the curve and surface texture and light, it will be more abstract.

 

Messages tend to be discrete. Abstractions seem more vague to me.

 

The concrete often has less mystique than the abstract. Not that relatively concrete images can’t have mystique, but that mystique often operates in us at a more abstract level.

 

To convey more abstract thoughts, I think, is to figure out what to withhold. It is to focus the photo away from the objectness of the elements in the photo.

[je ne regrette rien]

I think another key to series work is that it can provide context and reinforcement, which can be very important. Seeing your photo as an isolated example is a very different experience than seeing it with accompanying photos that express similar feelings or convey similar concepts. When a theme is simply presented in isolation, it can easily be missed, as you saw happen in this thread. When it's repeated with variations from photo to photo, it can zero the viewer in on intent and purpose.

Actually, this photograph is part of a series. The point is that the photo is about decay and magnificence, but the series is about symbols (and yes, I know the difference between abstract and symbolic ;)). I realise now that I should have made up my mind before starting to photograph. It’s not always easy for me, because of this multi-layered mental set-up I have.

 

I’m having some kind of eureka experience at the moment, because NOW I realise what the red thread of the series should have been. And also the title of the entire series and the titles of the single photographs. Not explanations, but just titles that are part of my visual message. That also connects to what @AlanKlein mentions and what you, @samstevens say about understanding and appreciation.

What an enlightenment!

 

This may be my chance to find my voice in photography starting with what interests me and strikes me and then becoming aware of the connections and associations I make. And then adjusting the technical and practical bits, which also have their function.

 

And to use photography in all its facets for this purpose. Be it abstract or not.

Edited February 14, 2022 by je ne regrette rien

[je ne regrette rien]

That moves the goalposts for me. That makes me think of an abstract concept on the same level of an object. The object is in front of your eyes and you can choose to render it as faithfully as possible. but the concept is not manifest until you make it so by suggestion. And the expectation that you can present an abstract idea as clearly as an object is expecting too much of the creator and viewer imo.

I need to reflect on this to realise the precise connection of what you say with what I just recognised. Because I need to present my possibly abstract and layered visual perceptions through a medium, photography, which abstracts (or may abstract) the real subjects I see.

[samstevens]

The point is that the photo is about decay and magnificence, but the series is about symbols

1. Does the photo symbolize decay or show it?
   
2. Is the series about symbols or does it use them?
   

I don't think either is necessarily an either/or question but I would find it helpful to clarify each point and proceed from there, even if the clarification takes place over the course of your work on the series.

I realise now that I should have made up my mind before starting to photograph.

I don't know how necessary or feasible that always is. Several series that I've done (some more concept-driven than others) have evolved as I've shot and worked on them. Yes, I had a good general idea of what I wanted to do, but to a great degree the shooting itself had a lot of influence on me along the way. Seeing what I came up with on the first few outings definitely helped steer me going forward but also opened me up to possibilities I wasn't considering in advance. In that respect, I imagine we all work somewhat differently and there's no "right" way to go about it.

[inoneeye]

To convey more abstract thoughts, I think, is to figure out what to withhold. It is to focus the photo away from the objectness of the elements in the photo.

The second part is a very good explanation of how I make an Abstract photo.

When I am focused on suggesting an abstract thought, an equivalence I often find it is a matter of manipulating or adjusting the capture but not only by exclusion or further isolation. When framing a scene… sometimes by technical means, I add other objects that I feel enhance the communication of the abstract idea. And If an afterthought, after the capture then it is in pp. That may mean sometimes withholding it also means adding expression in post that was not captured on the scene. As does presentation.

 

For sure some of the best equivalence photos do focus the photo away from the objectness but often those straddle or cross the line between an abstract photo and those that suggest an abstract idea even while they may do both.

Edited February 14, 2022 by inoneeye

[je ne regrette rien]

1. Does the photo symbolize decay or show it?
   
2. Is the series about symbols or does it use them?

1. 
   

I saw the two elements and decided to juxtapose them. The idea was to show decay and magnificence. There is one symbol, namely the Dome of St. Peter’s basilica. Probably a different focal length would

The series is about symbols. I need to refine its assembly on my website.

 

A further comment. I don’t think there is anything linear in making photographs and series. It’s always an iteration of ideas, impulses, feedback, refinement and additions.

[je ne regrette rien]

Something came across when I was writing my post. I will give it another try sometime.