Are photos capable of abstraction?

[je ne regrette rien]

Sometimes, further information and some background context affects my understanding or feelings about a photo. In this case, my take on the photo as a photo is pretty much the same both without and with the info you’ve provided. If the photo were part of a series that showed some of the sites you’re referencing, I might get a different feeling from it, but the knowledge of its location, while interesting, doesn’t impact my sense of the photo much.

Sure, you can take a photo as it is, not inferring any other element which is not visible.

 

But I am pretty much convinced of the fact that it rarely works like this. I have read plenty of comments here and elsewhere, which pick up a tiny element of the photo and connects it without placing any real borders. Associations have no limits. This photo comes from the same series as the picture juxtaposing St. Peter's basilica and the wreck in the river.

There are more, i'm just not sure whether this is the correct place to present a series, provided that we are debating abstraction. And possibly symbolism.

[je ne regrette rien]

Any photographer is entitled to chalk up a reaction to the inadequacy or insufficiency of a viewer.

Apologies, it was not my intention to chalk up anything, let alone inadequacy or insufficiency of anybody, least of all yours, Sam.

 

I just intended to say that my purpose here was not to present a series, but rather concepts. I will try and figure out where to put the series.

Edited March 6, 2022 by je ne regrette rien

[samstevens]

Sure, you can take a photo as it is, not inferring any other element which is not visible.

 

But I am pretty much convinced of the fact that it rarely works like this.

Any photographer is entitled to chalk up a reaction to the inadequacy or insufficiency of a viewer. In this case, the viewer responds by saying he would have appreciated the photographer implying another element not visible rather than being told to infer one.

[samstevens]

No worries. I think there was a miscommunication. I thought you were asking me to infer other elements outside the frame based on this single photo. Based on your response, I think you were simply saying the rest of the series would supply those implications. Yes, it’s hard to discuss the concepts embodied in a series when the series is not available.

[je ne regrette rien]

;)

I will figure out about the series.

 

This photo also says something about the topic of this thread: to pass my message I need to make sure that there are enough elements supporting it. And even then, the link between the Basilica above and the mural painting below, and possibly the portrayal of the main Synagogue of Rome may definitely not be readable to all, or any, viewers.

 

How much easier is it to use words and sentences!

[samstevens]

How much easier is it to use words and sentences!

This is important.

 

If you’re thinking of your photos or series as substituting for words and sentences, that’s one thing. If you’re thinking of the pictures as an alternative to words and sentences, that’s another.

 

Interestingly, in terms of this thread, the New Oxford Dictionary defines concept as an abstract idea. So concepts may be well suited to pictures. The New Oxford even gives a “philosophical” definition of concept using the words a mental picture.

One may want to use words and sentences as accompaniments to a “conceptual” photo series but that still doesn’t mean the series or photos have to mimic what words and sentences can do.

 

Photography is the language here. It’s got its own vocabulary, grammar, and syntax and, in many cases accomplishes what words alone cannot.

[Supriyo]

Regarding the role of accompanying text in visual art, one extreme example may be "An Oak Tree". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Oak_Tree

Oak tree is considered a good example of conceptual art, a category that includes other works such as the 'Fountain' by Marcel Duchamp. Many artworks benefit to some extent from accompanying text, but 'The Oak Tree' takes it to one extreme, where the work is not interpretable at all without the text. The text states the concept, while the glass of water embodies it as a demonstration of the stated concept. While such extreme cases may be open to ridicule, and I don't blame some who do, it does show the breadth of the realm of art and raises the question whether its necessary for art to be self-explanatory. If I was to look at a glass of water in an artistic context, without any accompanying description, I could have thought of many things, but the oak tree concept would not have been one of them.

[samstevens]

Regarding the role of accompanying text in visual art

Thanks for the link. Fascinating. I've always been kind of flummoxed, inspired, repelled, and drawn to the notion of transubstantiation and think it's a great theme for conceptual art. For me, transubstantiation can be applied to subjects other than God, of course.

 

Here, I don't see the text as an accompaniment, however. It is part and parcel of the whole which is the conceptual art work. I don't see it as an accompaniment to the glass shelf with water but rather as an inseparable partner. Less like the base rhythm accompanying a melody and more like 2+2 being 4. While the 2's accompany each other, they're partners rather than one being the accompaniment.

 

It's interesting to me that, when it was first shown, the text was a handout in the form of a leaflet. The article doesn't say how the text became a more integral part of the work and got hung on the wall along with the shelf and water. The evolution might speak to a recognition of just how much a part of the artwork it wound up being considered.

 

I view the text and the shelf in a holistic manner and that's where the concept lies. I imagine the artist wouldn't expect this all to be conveyed visually. With much conceptual art, it's not so much the art or at least the physical aspect of the art suggesting the concept. The concept is, in some sense, the art, manifested by using both intellectual or mental as well as physical aspects.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Sure, you can take a photo as it is, not inferring any other element which is not visible.

 

No, you cannot. See post #39.

It never works like this. It can't.

[inoneeye]

je ne regrette rien said: ↑

Sure, you can take a photo as it is, not inferring any other element which is not visible.

 

I took this as a viewer.? I may not and often don't surmise anything regarding the photographers intent or of an element not directly captured in the photo.

But for abstraction,

As an author i may employ visual cues, context or the accompaniment of words to express an abstract concept. Or in an attempt to engage a viewers imagination, to open a door to the suggestion of more than what you see.

[Supriyo]

I view the text and the shelf in a holistic manner and that's where the concept lies. I imagine the artist wouldn't expect this all to be conveyed visually. With much conceptual art, it's not so much the art or at least the physical aspect of the art suggesting the concept. The concept is, in some sense, the art, manifested by using both intellectual or mental as well as physical aspects.

 

+1 to that. My posting of this example was to show the diversity that encompasses art. I see, some people here are avert to the idea of any kind of text in the understanding of a picture, as if a description always dilutes the visual message. I think, everything depends on context. While Oak tree is not strictly visual art (the essence of this work has more to do with the interchanging identity of the glass of water / oak tree shaped by viewer’s faith in the artist, than the visual form of the glass or it’s content), I think this is an intriguing case where the text becomes an inseparable part of the whole construct, as you say.

 

Regarding the analogy with transubstantiation, somewhere in that Wikipedia article, there’s also the mention of faith (of the viewer for the artist) and the artist’s role in indoctrinating the viewer (not in a negative way) in the concept at hand.

 

‘This also raises the question, how much of an identity do physical objects carry and how much do we ascribe to them.

[Allen Herbert]

"I view the text and the shelf in a holistic manner and that's where the concept lies. I imagine the artist wouldn't expect this all to be conveyed visually. With much conceptual art"

 

"The text., where the concept lies" Sam.

 

.Me, being a simple soul, would think the photograph is where the concept lies. Suppose some folk prefer text as the inspiration for a photo.

 

Hey Ho.

[je ne regrette rien]

Sometimes the key of the philosophical discourse is trying the reason about causes. And the journey may be far more interesting than the destination.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

Thanks for the link. Fascinating. I've always been kind of flummoxed, inspired, repelled, and drawn to the notion of transubstantiation and think it's a great theme for conceptual art. For me, transubstantiation can be applied to subjects other than God, of course.

 

Here, I don't see the text as an accompaniment, however. It is part and parcel of the whole which is the conceptual art work. I don't see it as an accompaniment to the glass shelf with water but rather as an inseparable partner. Less like the base rhythm accompanying a melody and more like 2+2 being 4. While the 2's accompany each other, they're partners rather than one being the accompaniment.

 

It's interesting to me that, when it was first shown, the text was a handout in the form of a leaflet. The article doesn't say how the text became a more integral part of the work and got hung on the wall along with the shelf and water. The evolution might speak to a recognition of just how much a part of the artwork it wound up being considered.

 

I view the text and the shelf in a holistic manner and that's where the concept lies. I imagine the artist wouldn't expect this all to be conveyed visually. With much conceptual art, it's not so much the art or at least the physical aspect of the art suggesting the concept. The concept is, in some sense, the art, manifested by using both intellectual or mental as well as physical aspects.

 

It would be interesting, (maybe), to have the artist, change the text every now and again. It is mind-blowing that he was able to create/express the idea of an object and process with the most minimal of visual clues. I wonder, did he think of the abstract theme, choose the text and then construct the objects? Or does it matter? But it seems that the use of "Oak Tree" sort of functions as both a noun providing context and an implication of the transitive verb/s like becoming, or process etc etc. and serving to map the relationships of the objects actually shown.

[je ne regrette rien]

An Oak Tree by Michael Craig-Martin (1973) seems to me an extraordinary powerful piece of work.

The artist, who is recognised as one makes very bold statements about

• the nature of the object and the transformation he causes.
  
• the physical characteristics of the object, at 253 centimetres above the ground, the precisely defined level of the water, the association with the oak tree, which I suppose no viewer would infer unless guided by the artist's statement. How does Craig-Martin deal with evaporation, which alters the "precisely defined level of water"? And how does he deal with the inevitable marks of minerals in the water, which will be left from evaporation? This piece of artwork obviously requires maintenance to be kept in the original status and form of the artist's concept
  
• This work comes from the artist's self: his interpretation of the concept of transubstantiation, his path towards the concept, the conception of An Oak Tree (why oak, why not a willow, a fern, a poplar, a pine, a walnut tree?). Extremely powerful statements, and the level of the water and the height above ground are equally powerful statements: I realise a concept, I decide and that is what I conceive, I decide the tiniest details of its physical characteristics. A powerful self that "imposes" a concept upon the spectators.
  

The most funny thing is that

It was once barred by Australian officials from entering the country as "vegetation". Craig-Martin was forced to inform them that it was really a glass of water. He said, "It was of course a wonderfully funny incident, particularly because it extended into 'real life' the discussion about belief and doubt, and fact and fiction I was addressing in the work."

That I think it barred the conceptual power of Craig-Martin who had to abandon his concept to make it visible: it wouldn't have made into an Australian museum otherwise.

 

I am not aware of the connections of Craig-Martin with oak trees, with relatively low oak trees (253cm) since,

Oak trees are usually large in size. They can reach 70 feet in height and 9 feet in width. Their branches can reach 135 feet in length.

or, for that matter, with a Duralex glass or with water and its level.

 

Getting back to pictures, Sam rightfully legitimately stated

To me, the first photo above is more a picture of symbols than it is one that uses them or one that employs symbolism. It captures more of the graphic character of the symbols and not much faith, IMO. It has a more documentary than transformational feel.

 

Elaborating a parallelism with Craig-Martin (who is an artist and I am not) on the basis of my "encounters of faith" picture

• he conceived a transubstantiated form of an oak tree, bringing in objects and physical characteristics familiar to him and developed their physical characteristics (height of the shelf, brand of the glass or type of container, for that matter, level of the water)
  
• he had to provide a written explanation to his artwork, I suppose that without it nobody would have made a connection between these objects and physical characteristics and an oak tree (unless Craig-Martin's artistic development already contained hints at such a conceptualisation)
  
• I would have had to provide a similar explanation on the positioning of this symbolic drawing mid-way between the Synagogue and St. Peter's Basilica, etc. Would it have worked in the same way?
  

[samstevens]

Would it have worked in the same way?

In my opinion, no. For at least three reasons

1. Transubstantiation is more than symbolism. It is a transformation of substance. The wine does not just represent the blood of Christ. There is a whole change of substance that is believed to take place. And I think that’s what Craig-Martin is dealing with. Water and shelf are not readily-recognizable symbols of an oak tree. His text offers that they are an oak tree. Via his text, his audience may come to recognize this. Your photo, on the other hand, portrays easily-recognizable symbols. For most viewers, what they symbolize needs no explanation.
   
2. Craig-Martin’s explanation goes directly to the meaning of the physical elements. Your explanation is indirect, not about the meaning of the elements but about the location of the symbols. So, I think his explanation goes to concept while yours goes more to context.
   
3. Part of his concept, aside from the transubstantiation of the oak tree, is about art itself and the potential link of transubstantiation to the faith of the artist and viewer. If part of the concept of your series is an intentional and direct philosophical or personal statement about photography itself, hopefully your series and/or any accompanying text will address that.
   

Edited March 11, 2022 by samstevens

[samstevens]

I wonder, did he think of the abstract theme, choose the text and then construct the objects?

Interesting thought. If he were smart and maybe a little glib, lol, he'd say it was simultaneous and that there was no difference. Seriously, though, on some level he might just say that. At the very least, he might say it was a reciprocal or symbiotic process, where the concept and its manifestation helped feed each other.

But it seems that the use of "Oak Tree" sort of functions as both a noun providing context and an implication of the transitive verb/s like becoming, or process etc etc.

This is great! And even beyond process, there may be an implication of process being an identity.

Edited March 11, 2022 by samstevens

[je ne regrette rien]

In my opinion, no. For at least three reasons

1. Transubstantiation is more than symbolism. It is a transformation of substance. The wine does not just represent the blood of Christ. There is a whole change of substance that is believed to take place. And I think that’s what Craig-Martin is dealing with. Water and shelf are not readily-recognizable symbols of an oak tree. His text offers that they are an oak tree. Via his text, his audience may come to recognize this. Your photo, on the other hand, portrays easily-recognizable symbols. For most viewers, what they symbolize needs no explanation.
   
2. Craig-Martin’s explanation goes directly to the meaning of the physical elements. Your explanation is indirect, not about the meaning of the elements but about the location of the symbols. So, I think his explanation goes to concept while yours goes more to context.
   
3. Part of his concept, aside from the transubstantiation of the oak tree, is about art itself and the potential link of transubstantiation to the faith of the artist and viewer. If part of the concept of your series is an intentional and direct philosophical or personal statement about photography itself, hopefully your series and/or any accompanying text will address that.
   

That is correct. I'm absolutely aware of the meaning of transubstantiation in the Eucharist, which should be considered as the culmination of the earthly journey of Jesus Christ that is extremely clear in the way it unfolds.

 

I'm looking at "An Oak Tree" from a completely different perspective: without any explanation with the possible exception of the title. It's the explanation that clarifies the meaning of the artwork. Let's for one moment neglect whether "An Oak Tree" is symbolic, or conceptual, or rather the declaration of a transubstantiation. It is what it is, namely a declared transformation of an object into another. This is not perceptible unless we read the explanation.

 

A renown artist is of course entitled to do this. But still "An Oak Tree" without any explanation will not be understood. Here is a picture of the artwork with the explanatory interview explaining what we see.

[samstevens]

It's the explanation that clarifies the meaning of the artwork.

Yes. See my point number 2 above. He’s given us a descriptive explanation of the concepts involved in his photo, and many of us are able to relate what he shows to what he says. You have not done this. You’ve given us info about the location of your photo and the symbols in it. But I still don’t have a grasp on the concept/s involved in your photo or how what you show relates to a concept.

 

So here is my question as clearly as I can ask it ...

 

What is the concept you’re working with and how does that concept tie to the photo?

[samstevens]

Also, and importantly, it's not just that Craig-Martin's work is explained by text. I think the significance of his work is not that it's conceptual and that an explanation helps us with the concept. It's that his work is performative, in that the very elements he presents are something else. It's not just that he wants to present a concept. He's presenting a working case of the concept. It would be not like a photo communicating something about the concept of music (which seems to be the way much conceptual art works), but like a photo being able to play or become the music itself.

 

I like thinking about a photo being something else. It's not the thing pictured, but a photograph of the thing pictured. Viewers have the opportunity to look at photos not as substitutes for things the camera was pointed at but as new things photographers put in the world. When the photograph is seen as the new object, the new reality in addition to being a representation of reality, a transformation can take place in just what the viewer thinks they're dealing with and what the "object" of their attention is ... that being both what's pictured and the picture ... as well as the substance via which or on which the picture is seen.

 

I think the more a photographer can intentionally work with a photo being its own object rather than the picturing of one, the more close the photographer may come to what Craig-Martin's project is.*

 

*I'm not saying I think or hope you will do this. I don't actually think that's what you're after and you've given no indication it is. I'm just discussing what I think his work accomplishes and is about.

[Supriyo]

Sam and others, one question that comes to my mind regarding the oak tree, if this is art, how do we characterize it’s aesthetic experience? I do feel, that the thought that a full grown oak tree (complex, physically imposing, yet benevolent and very much lively) has taken the form of a tiny glass of water (simple, somewhat ethereal, yet very much familiar) is a beautiful thought to have, and I may have stood in front of it for a long time and taken in the experience, are there other aspects of aesthetics one might consider in an artwork like this (apart from the points already discussed in this thread)?

 

one last thing, does anyone feel like drinking the glass of water to see what drinking an oak tree feels like, like I do when I think of it. (This wasn’t meant as a joke. I am trying to figure out what ways an artwork like this affects human mind. May be this is all part of the aesthetic experience).

[samstevens]

if this is art, how do we characterize it’s aesthetic experience?

Well, aesthetics is a whole discussion in itself and the aesthetic experience has been understood differently through history, so it's not an easy question to take on.

 

I'll answer briefly and somewhat limitedly.

 

One of the main threads running through aesthetics is the idea of beauty. Though many people think of art as beautiful in the surface, shallow, or pretty sense, there are other ways to think about beauty. Going back to classical takes, proportionality and harmony were important aspects of beauty. Going way back to the Greeks, the word for beauty in some Greek dialects derived from hora, which meant hour. This conception of beauty had to do with a thing's "being of its hour" (a cousin to proportionality). So, a ripe fruit was beautiful. An old man or woman acting and looking appropriately was beautiful while an old man or woman trying to seem younger was not beautiful.

 

So, here we have some inroad into the oak tree, being of its hour both as water and as tree ... the sense of appropriateness of each substance at its time in what proportion it needs to be at any given time.

 

Kant said, "Judgments of beauty are sensory, emotional and intellectual all at once." For Kant, an aesthetic experience is one where sensation gives rise to pleasure by engaging reflective contemplation.

 

I think aesthetics and art often get lost in the sensory pleasure part, to the often neglected aspect of giving rise to (transcending to) something else, in my opinion at least some kind of contemplation or being profoundly present.

[AlanKlein]

If you use the word emotional rather than aesthetic, it would cover more ground.

[je ne regrette rien]

Sam and others, one question that comes to my mind regarding the oak tree, if this is art, how do we characterize it’s aesthetic experience? I do feel, that the thought that a full grown oak tree (complex, physically imposing, yet benevolent and very much lively) has taken the form of a tiny glass of water (simple, somewhat ethereal, yet very much familiar) is a beautiful thought to have, and I may have stood in front of it for a long time and taken in the experience, are there other aspects of aesthetics one might consider in an artwork like this (apart from the points already discussed in this thread)?

 

one last thing, does anyone feel like drinking the glass of water to see what drinking an oak tree feels like, like I do when I think of it. (This wasn’t meant as a joke. I am trying to figure out what ways an artwork like this affects human mind. May be this is all part of the aesthetic experience).

I believe the approach needs to be different. We need to stay away from any physical dimension and perception of oak tree and water glasses on shelves as well. It is the artist who has the power here and is empowered, just like Duchamp, Magritte. We must entrust them with our perceptions and senses and make theirs our own.

[Supriyo]

Well, aesthetics is a whole discussion in itself and the aesthetic experience has been understood differently through history, so it's not an easy question to take on.

 

I'll answer briefly and somewhat limitedly.

 

One of the main threads running through aesthetics is the idea of beauty. Though many people think of art as beautiful in the surface, shallow, or pretty sense, there are other ways to think about beauty. Going back to classical takes, proportionality and harmony were important aspects of beauty. Going way back to the Greeks, the word for beauty in some Greek dialects derived from hora, which meant hour. This conception of beauty had to do with a thing's "being of its hour" (a cousin to proportionality). So, a ripe fruit was beautiful. An old man or woman acting and looking appropriately was beautiful while an old man or woman trying to seem younger was not beautiful.

 

So, here we have some inroad into the oak tree, being of its hour both as water and as tree ... the sense of appropriateness of each substance at its time in what proportion it needs to be at any given time.

 

Kant said, "Judgments of beauty are sensory, emotional and intellectual all at once." For Kant, an aesthetic experience is one where sensation gives rise to pleasure by engaging reflective contemplation.

 

I think aesthetics and art often get lost in the sensory pleasure part, to the often neglected aspect of giving rise to (transcending to) something else, in my opinion at least some kind of contemplation or being profoundly present.

 

These are really interesting thoughts. Sorry for the late response, because sometimes I can only make time during the weekends.

 

In reference to the ‘hour’, I wonder whether it’s a reference to the harmony between the subject and its environment. I can think of opposites as being aesthetically pleasant as well, for example a single red rose in a frosty icy environment. The rose is not in it’s hour (that would be Spring), but beautiful because it portrays resilience, although tender and perishable. Conversely, an old person trying to look young used to be perceived as bad taste. However, I understand that you were referring to aesthetic philosophy from the Greek times and as you said, aesthetics is a complex subject that cannot be covered so easily.

 

Regarding this sentence of yours, “So, here we have some inroad into the oak tree, being of its hour both as water and as tree ... the sense of appropriateness of each substance at its time in what proportion it needs to be at any given time.”

 

I am not sure if I understand you correctly, but the way I see it - a glass of water with its own proportions and water level has become a oak tree, without any need for physical changes. There is a certain dignity in that, like it’s dignifying for a aged person to reflect his/her long life and experience and find value as a human being in those aspects, rather than trying to be someone who he/she is not. I understand, the old man/woman analogy you gave was not meant for the oak tree, but I wanted to put forward my thought. Still trying to understand the full impact of this artwork.