Are photos capable of abstraction?

[Supriyo]

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.

 

I appreciate that but I find it’s difficult to completely follow the artist’s perception, since he has provided hints rather than divulging completely how he feels. I read the associated commentary and the interview with the artist that was posted and came back with this impression. It feels like the artist does want me to entrust him in believing that it’s a oak tree (which I do), but from that point on, he wants me to carve my own way, which is ok with me too.

[samstevens]

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.

I appreciate that but I find it’s difficult to completely follow the artist’s perception, since he has provided hints rather than divulging completely how he feels. I read the associated commentary and the interview with the artist that was posted and came back with this impression. It feels like the artist does want me to entrust him in believing that it’s a oak tree (which I do), but from that point on, he wants me to carve my own way, which is ok with me too.

I think it's the glass of water, the oak tree, and the framing of the water and text together as art, that has the power here. Regarding the water and the oak tree, I find it's both the idea of them and their physicality that have power here. The artist is conveying this and asking us to recognize and respond to it. I think an important part of the very point of it is the physical dimension. Transubstantiation is a physical (if also divine) process.

[samstevens]

I can think of opposites as being aesthetically pleasant as well, for example a single red rose in a frosty icy environment.

I can approach a rose in an icy environment aesthetically as well. Our thinking about aesthetics has moved well beyond what they thought back then, though it's still fascinating to consider their take on aesthetics and what it offers the contemporary viewer and what we may have retained of their original ideas. The Greeks, I'm afraid, were quite rigid about a lot of this. From what I've read, they would not find this kind of portrayal of a rose beautiful.

a glass of water with its own proportions and water level has become a oak tree, without any need for physical changes

Yes. I don't think the artist is denying the physicality of the glass of water. That they are one and the same still allows for physicality.

 

I think the Greeks would recognize the importance of our youthful experiences to who we are in old age. Though there are arguments among them whether to emphasize change and flux (Heraclitus) or sameness (Parmenides), they dwelt a lot on identity. So, whether the old person is the same person he was as a kid or whether a person is a constantly changing thing (constant and change is intentionally ironic), our histories are important. But the Greeks would have thought that there were appropriate ways to act as an older person. They would not have minded recognizing one's past and history. They would have minded acting like you did when you were younger.

 

I wasn't trying to relate this in a one-to-one way to the Oak Tree art. I was responding to your question of how aesthetics comes into play with it. Just suggesting that aesthetics has from its beginning dealt with notions of identity and change, which are at play in the Oak Tree.

[Allen Herbert]

"one last thing, does anyone feel like drinking the glass of water to see what drinking an oak tree feels like£ Sup..

 

Sorry to rain on the parade....But, what the monkeys is this Oak Tree thing got to do with photography? A photograph communicates in its own language. A seed in a bottle...really. Unless you understand the concept, it is meaningless. What has that got to do with photography?

 

Methinks, folks on this forum are more about wordsmithing; and who's the best at it, than actual photography... little offerings with real world photos. A serous dearth of photos on this forum. Lots and lots of ....of... I'm the special cleverest one.

 

Think, P/N a photo site. Which means Photographs.

Edited March 20, 2022 by Allen Herbert

[inoneeye]

“judge a man by his questions rather than his answers.”

The way you frame a question can influence or determine the answer... I think that is a common thread that applies to words, photos and to the Oak Tree.

[samstevens]

frame a question

a good de scription of some photos …

[je ne regrette rien]

I think it's the glass of water, the oak tree, and the framing of the water and text together as art, that has the power here. Regarding the water and the oak tree, I find it's both the idea of them and their physicality that have power here. The artist is conveying this and asking us to recognize and respond to it. I think an important part of the very point of it is the physical dimension. Transubstantiation is a physical (if also divine) process.

Isn't the artist who is the one who conceives and expresses the work and its meaning? Per se a glass of water remains a glass of water and a shelf remains a shelf. It's the artist who operates the transformation, the transubstantiation, isn't it?

 

“judge a man by his questions rather than his answers.”

The way you frame a question can influence or determine the answer... I think that is a common thread that applies to words, photos and to the Oak Tree.

As one who professionally asks questions for research purposes, I could not agree more.

[samstevens]

It's the artist who operates the transformation, the transubstantiation, isn't it?

Not for me. I think the artist is pointing me to something that he believes is already there and is asking me to experience that too. I don't think the artist, in this case, is responsible for or creates the transubstantiation. I think he's recognized it and presented it in a particular way.

[je ne regrette rien]

Not for me. I think the artist is pointing me to something that he believes is already there and is asking me to experience that too. I don't think the artist, in this case, is responsible for or creates the transubstantiation. I think he's recognized it and presented it in a particular way.

It may be there, it may not be there. I would not exclude the "creation process" by the artist. The artist may be transforming, transubstantiating, but also presenting, as you say. In our case of the "an oak tree" it works as you say: Craig-Martin does not create a glass or water, or a shelf.

[samstevens]

It may be there, it may not be there. I would not exclude the "creation process" by the artist. The artist may be transforming, transubstantiating, but also presenting, as you say. In our case of the "an oak tree" it works as you say: Craig-Martin does not create a glass or water, or a shelf.

The artist often transforms. I thought you were asking specifically about Craig-Martin. To me, it’s not whether he created a glass of water or shelf. I thought, perhaps incorrectly, you were saying he created the transubstantiation of water and tree. That’s what I was denying.

 

I actually think Craig-Martin’s work here may fall short, as the water and oak tree seem more part of a natural process (seeds get watered and become oak trees) rather than being transubstantial. There’s a mystery to transubstantiation (how is the bread the body and the wine the blood) that’s lacking in the fact that water and tree are so naturally connected.

 

Nevertheless, while I don’t think he’s totally successful, Craig-Martin piques my imagination with all this. I’m letting it stew, because I think there’s something fascinating in it but haven’t yet solidified my thoughts on how it pertains to photography and art.

 

I keep coming back to Serrano’s Piss Christ, but don’t yet know what I’d say about it relative to this discussion. That photo has more power for me, but it may turn out not to relate here at all ???

[inoneeye]

I keep coming back to Serrano’s Piss Christ, but don’t yet know what I’d say about it relative to this discussion. That photo has more power for me, but it may turn out not to relate here at all ???

 

I think it is very relevant here. Symbols & abstractions often do not have a closed simple singular meaning. The crucifixion, the cross is loaded with meanings and interpretations even in the face of being focused as specifically as a stop sign. The crucification is great piece of art on countless levels. An abstraction, concept art, symbol and with a fascinating narrative.

AS for Piss Christ ... in context urine also becomes a powerful symbol, negative to many - open ended to me. Serrano gave the viewer a great opportunity to reflect & interpret by combining x2 powerful symbols. In doing so I see an open ended abstraction left to me to go where I will. I do not think that body fluids and the symbol of the crucifixion are at odds and are indeed worthy of a discussion of transubstantiation.

 

 

[samstevens]

I read something by a poet recently who said that translation is a kind of transubstantiation where one poem becomes another. I think the same may be said of art homages.

[inoneeye]

I am thinking that transubstantiation, or imo transformation of water to an oak tree does have something in common with photography in the context of this photo discussion..

The differences are obvious but as those differences are explored the similarities surface. They are transformative. A photo abstraction, the bread & wine, the water as an oak tree... are no longer only the object itself, it has become other. Not what was originally perceived.

 

I am most impressed by Michael Craig_Martin's explanation of and motivation for An Oak Tree.

Craig-Martin explained that: ‘I considered that in An Oak Tree I had deconstructed the work of art in such a way as to reveal its single basic and essential element, belief that is the confident faith of the artist in his capacity to speak and the willing faith of the viewer in accepting what he has to say. In other words, belief underlies our whole experience of art.’

"The artwork is the original object or action that has been re-presented but in a different form meaning that it is both ‘the thing’ and a ‘different thing’ at one and the same time."

‘The ability to believe that an object is something other than its physical appearance indicates requires a transformative vision. This type of seeing (and knowing) is at the heart of conceptual thinking processes, by which intellectual and emotional values are conferred on images and objects.’ Craig-Martin is saying that conceptual art, even art itself, is at its heart about the belief of the artist in re-presenting an object or idea in the form of something other.

Edited March 26, 2022 by inoneeye

[q.g._de_bakker]

Water never transsubstantiates or transforms into a tree. It is taken up and becomes part of it. As what it is. Water.

So think about what that means in the context of this lengthy exchange.

[inoneeye]

Agreed q.g. water does not ... nor do bread & wine become... Unless you allow for it with faith, imagination - or in art with an open mind. Without that creativity and art (creating & viewing) become flat and less interesting as your comment reflects. Edited March 26, 2022 by inoneeye

[je ne regrette rien]

Serrano’s work caused huge controversy but needs to be seen in relation to the artist in first instance and also in relation to the other works of his series.

I read something by a poet recently who said that translation is a kind of transubstantiation where one poem becomes another. I think the same may be said of art homages.

Yes.

 

I always had a feeling of such transubstantiation, even if I see a poem as immateriale in essence.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Agreed q.g. water does not ... nor do bread & wine become... Unless you allow for it with faith, imagination - or in art with an open mind. Without that creativity and art (creating & viewing) become flat and less interesting as your comment reflects.

A sign of a less than open mind is believing you have to turn to what you are able to imagine instead of seeing the world as it is. Believing that things become flat and less interesting if you ignore the world is a sure sign of what makes this thread so extremely trivial, nonsensical and boring. Stuck in your own limited, closed mind.

A thread like this has no place in anything labelled 'philosophy'.

Edited March 26, 2022 by q.g._de_bakker

[je ne regrette rien]

I am thinking that transubstantiation, or imo transformation of water to an oak tree does have something in common with photography in the context of this photo discussion..

The differences are obvious but as those differences are explored the similarities surface. They are transformative. A photo abstraction, the bread & wine, the water as an oak tree... are no longer only the object itself, it has become other. Not what was originally perceived.

 

I am most impressed by Michael Craig_Martin's explanation of and motivation for An Oak Tree.

Craig-Martin explained that: ‘I considered that in An Oak Tree I had deconstructed the work of art in such a way as to reveal its single basic and essential element, belief that is the confident faith of the artist in his capacity to speak and the willing faith of the viewer in accepting what he has to say. In other words, belief underlies our whole experience of art.’

"The artwork is the original object or action that has been re-presented but in a different form meaning that it is both ‘the thing’ and a ‘different thing’ at one and the same time."

‘The ability to believe that an object is something other than its physical appearance indicates requires a transformative vision. This type of seeing (and knowing) is at the heart of conceptual thinking processes, by which intellectual and emotional values are conferred on images and objects.’ Craig-Martin is saying that conceptual art, even art itself, is at its heart about the belief of the artist in re-presenting an object or idea in the form of something other.

What really hits me is the power of Craig-Martins piece of work. Power is the only term, which comes to my mind. Power to conceive, to set-up several substances and make these substances another substance on a completely different level of reality. So strong that he had to "revert" the transubstantiation to go through Australian customs. I'm totally amused by how the substance matches/not matches the declaratory element and how a legalistic approach takes the latter literally and actually definitely confirms the transubstantiation.

 

In respect to Serrano's work some context is useful: the photo is part of a series where objects are immersed in some kind of liquid. By the way, he says

“You could say, I’m a controversial artist by accident. I had no idea Piss Christ would get the attention it did, since I meant neither blasphemy nor offense by it. I’ve been a Catholic all my life, so I am a follower of Christ. But I’m an artist, and the role of the artist is to break new ground for himself and for his audience.”

I don't like Immersion (Piss Christ) but acknowledge that its message goes very much beyond its apparent meaning and I, as a Catholic Christian, do not take any offence. Jesus Christ has endured one of the worst of acts humans can perform on another human when he was tortured and crucified.

 

@inoneeye: if we consider the whole body of work of Serrano associated to this photo, the message is even deeper and significant. And considering the other work of the artist, as presented for example in "Selected Works 1984-2015" I am even more impressed.

 

To go back to our original topic, here we have powerful symbolic and abstract statements. It is mandatory to recognise them in my view. Even if we dislike them.

Edited March 26, 2022 by je ne regrette rien

[inoneeye]

“

↑

A sign of a less than open mind is believing you have to turn to what you are able to imagine instead of seeing the world as it is. Believing that things become flat and less interesting if you ignore the world […]“

 

Really. If you think I rely on only what I imagine and choose to ignore the world then your comprehension is falling short.

 

No q.g. I do not subscribe to that. It would be silly to believe in just what you imagine and ignore all else. That would be fantasy. Making art, creating photos at best often reveals realities and layers of realities both imagined and experienced.

Seeing the ‘world as it is’ requires observation, imagination, an open mind and the realization that it is not so neatly packaged in a such limiting single dimension. Art, philosophy require much more creative thinking and exploration way beyond the assumption that your take implies. It makes a lot of sense that you’re bored.

Edited March 26, 2022 by inoneeye

[q.g._de_bakker]

Yes, inoneeye, it requires an open mind to see the world as it is. So you do 'subscribe' to what i said. You do have to distinguish between the fantasy world this thread is traveling through, and the grown up and to-be-taken-seriously stuff that would indeed be worth the many words wasted in this thread.

The OP's question alone already makes jaws drop. What nonsense. Ask any contributor to the Abstract photo forum on PNet, for instance.

So take in what happens to that water and trees, and consider what that means for what is said here. And judge the origin of that silly thought accordingly. Do not take in nonsense, and then close your mind so not to have to recognise it for what it is, all under the guise of creativity, art, or philosophy. It is nonsense.

Philosophy is a serious business. Not a safe harbour for silly ideas and fantasies. And neither is art.

Edited March 26, 2022 by q.g._de_bakker

[samstevens]

And yet you seem desperately to want to play in the very sandbox that bores you so. A bit of realism.

[samstevens]

So you do 'subscribe' to what i said.

Notice me. Notice me. Too bad you can’t “like” your own [sarcasm]words of wisdom[/sarcasm], ehh?

Edited March 26, 2022 by samstevens

[q.g._de_bakker]

And yet you seem desperately to want to play in the very sandbox that bores you so. A bit of realism.

But at what game, Sam?

Would you not be better of, Sam, using the Ignore button on me?

[samstevens]

belief underlies our whole experience of art

—Craig-Martin

Belief and the ability to question and alter beliefs. Attention helps.

in accepting what he has to say

—Craig-Martin

I might prefer to say, “in giving ourselves over to what the artist says.” Acceptance may or may not follow.

The ability to believe that an object is something other than its physical appearance indicates requires a transformative vision.

—Craig-Martin

This leads me to some thoughts about photos, though I don’t know that transubstantiation requires it. I think what requires faith or strong belief is going beyond those physical differences to experience the transubstantiation. I think the physical differences of the objects remain and are significant even as we accept the conversion of one substance to another.

 

Especially as regards photography is the idea that the subject in the photo 1) may be representative of what it pictures and simultaneously other than what it pictures, and 2) may be both subject and not-subject as a viewer moves back and forth between thinking in more literal subject-object terms and more abstract photo-as-subject-and-object terms.

_____________________________________

 

I’m still mulling over the important differences between “transformation” and “transubstantiation.” I’m thinking that transubstantiation, in essence, excludes transformation and that’s why it is so profound and requires faith or at least uninhibited belief. To transform is to change greatly the appearance of a substance. Transubstantiation is to convert one substance into another without changing the characteristics of either. The Greek term metousiosis (change of inner reality, of essence) was used by the 17th C church to understand transubstantiation.

[inoneeye]

To go back to our original topic, here we have powerful symbolic and abstract statements. It is mandatory to recognise them in my view. Even if we dislike them.

 

Recognition, as in acknowledgement of the power of the mentioned work or as identification/comprehension of the statements or both?

For some there is no power to these works. It doesn't resonate, end of story for them. For others like yourself, you are able to get some value and recognize a power from a piece that you clearly do not like. For me, i do not think much of An Oak Tree other than as a doorway to Michael Craig-Martin's deconstruction statement(s). I think Duchamp took a more affective path.

 

Pragmatically for my photography,

I think for a viewer of a visual medium that recognition of a symbol or The intent of the artist is most often not necessary. Some work communicates an abstraction with some clarity without requiring a viewer to be informed of the mechanisms at work. This harkens back to our discussion of a viewers read that does not recognize the symbol or intent but does still get it. A good Abstract might (with line, color, tone, contrast, compositional interplay etc.) put a viewer in the intended zone and communicate with substantial clarity. As a creator it behooves me to know the proper vocabulary to get there.

Edited March 26, 2022 by inoneeye