Visual Music #2

camera motion . . . no PS

Carl, I really like this abstract. Mostly red with just a little complimentary green was a great choice. I like the motion and rythm. One day, you'll have to reveal what it was you shot.

Contrived...

Not contrived at all. Just the opposite, given that the results from the process are unpredictable.

Daryl, I am curious to understand what it is about this photo you feel is "contrived". Would you mind elaborating?

Works very well.

 

("It sounds contrived" was my mother's reaction to first hearing John Mayall's Bluesbreakers :-)

 

LOL. Compared to what? Cream? Traffic? Yardbirds? I'm surprised you could get her to listen long enough to form an opinion. Mine certainly wouldn't. She was just delighted that I liked some of Dionne Warwick's Bacharach tunes.

7/6 Although camera motion shots aren't the most "original" you've done such a splendid job selecting pure abstract mood out of the chaos that I think the end result is splendid. love it.

Speaking of music, this reminds me of those light boxes people used to hook up to their stereo systems back in the seventies (at least people in the midwest). The second thing it reminded me of was that stupid aluminum Christmas tree we had in the sixties with the rotating colored light. The third thing that this reminded me of was those colored bubble-light Christmas tree ornaments we had back in the fifties. The fourth thing this reminded me of was that I was not born before that but I think my mother may have been standing outside in the sun wearing a bikini while she was pregnant with me.

 

Everyone knows there is no such thing as a "pure" abstract. ;-)

I was and it doesn't remind me of any of those things. :-) No such thing as a pure abstract . . . hmmmmm. Maybe it's because I try to avoid making representational associations, at least most of the time.

 

What do you all think of Mark Rothko?

I think he could get a job designing sheet and pillow sets for Wal-Mart. Seriously, good use of complimentary colors and sumptuously abstract. I know there is no such thing as a sumptuous abstract but I thought that sounded impressive.

AH . . . but "sumptuous", and other descriptive adjectives are exactly what abstracts are about.

"I think he could get a job designing sheet and pillow sets for Wal-Mart."

That's funny - and if he had it might have saved him.

Can't say I 'enjoy' Rothko, and when I took a friend to see the chapel in Houston her comment afterwards was something like, "Well that was bloody depressing".

The Rothko effect had hit home :-)

I just read up a bit on him and it seems that he did go through a "dark" period, but I'm not affected that way by all his abstracts.

 

(I tried to find out which of his works are on display down in Houston and couldn't find a "gallery". For all I know, they could be quite different from the collection up here in the National Gallery.)

 

I just uploaded "Visual Music #3". I think it is noticably "darker" than this one in several respects.

Try here:

rothko chapel

That one came up first on my google search, but I can't find the actual paintings.

 

He says that to view his work only as color (and presumably shape) relationships is to miss the point. I understand . . . but I don't. I wonder if he understands and anticipates the specific emotions that viewers will express.

I think the Quicktime Virtual Tour > Interior 360 degree is the only shot that includes the paintings, and the color is really poor. Shame. I don't remember too much of what Rothko wrote or was quoted on but I think 'drama' was important. I no longer have the text but, if you want to research it, there was an interesting story about an important New York restaurant commission that went sour - that event changed his perspective a little.

OK, found the Quicktime tour. The color is pretty poor, as you say, but the whole thing appears to be kind of monochromatic anyway.

 

I had found the story about the association with the restaurant. Interesting to see how that developed into the intense interest in controlling the viewing venue.

I think it mostly depend on your approach to image -or to the world as such. If by attitude or trade you tend to put order in what flows in front of your eyes, than each abstract is yet another Rorsach ink-blot test to go through, and you will not feel comfortable in front of it as long as you do not come, even not in a conscious way, to a point where you can anchor it to something. On the other end of the spectrum, which I fear I cannot approach, I guess the artists enjoy forms and colours, getting lost in the abstracts.

 

In this discussion, Carl, the interesting concept for you is where to locate rythm... is it in the analytical approach to abstraction, or rather in the gutsy (not as a dead bird, but as coming from deep inside) appreciation of colors and shapes which is more on the artsy side?

 

All this told, I like this the best among #1,#2 and #3. #3 does not hold to the rythm of this image, sharing overall tones. #1 is fascinating in its bend, but there the green/yellow borders of the red sprays give them a strong multi-dimensional effect.

There is definitely rhythm in the original pattern, but not much of it remains with these captures, to my eye. I liked the way the shapes were largely undefined and tended to emerge and dissolve. As mentioned above, good examples of this genre are more than shape and color, and I'm trying hard to figure out what it is that makes an abstract extend beyond compositional interest. There may also be something about the good ones that makes viewers less inclined to resolve it into more familiar elements. I'm working on that, too.

Carl, Laurie - perhaps I could have been more specific - 'Contrived' as in making something out of nothing. I suppose you could take this either way as an abstract image can be just that (although I prefer abstract art to be more making nothing out of something) but the way it was intended was in saying that I find this completely non-descript and uninteresting and to say that it is this, that or the other requires too much effort (IMHO). You're entitled to your own opinions naturally but that is mine.

It's still a matter of your defining this abstract in a certain way, then deciding that it doesn't work. Wouldn't it be better to try to understand what I'm actually doing and why?

I meant pure in the sense of, "As pure as the driven slush." Which is something someone used to say to someone when they were very drunk. This was a play on words, substituting slush for snow.

 

This short comment (about purity) was a continuation of another conversation we were having about choosing a direction and then following through. I meant there was no abstract that was pure of intent and I was actually trying to make a joke. Sure you can say that something is purely abstract (meaning totally abstracted) but what I was trying to say was that there is no pure intent because the artist/photographer is leaving the door open to the viewer (and providing a small temptation to react) by letting the viewer make up their own mind about the intent of the image. There is no such thing as a pure abstract even if the image is purely abstract.

I'll have to think about that one. I'm not sure what a photographer does to leave the door ajar or alternatively lock it so it becomes impossible to go off on the usual Rorschach trip. I think Rothko's door is padlocked.

Well, I'm late to the party, but I have been thinking about them.

 

Given your interests in abstraction and formal design I'm not surprised to see you working form time to time with abstracts that don't make any reference to their subject matter. And they are visually interesting and stimulating.

 

The lack of reference to the subject matter - either by studying the content of the photo or through the title or other explanation changes how I view or interpret the images. Of course, painters have exploited this freedom for some time. But I can't help but thinking that painting is also a richer toolset - there is a visceral feeling of the constructed object in a painting. And although a photograph like this is also 'constructed' there is a distance in the construction process.

 

While I can be quite moved by abstract paintings, I guess I just don't find 'abstract photographs' as compelling - though I'm not sure this is fair. Perhaps I'm just fascinated by the special relationship that photography has in referencing 'subject matter'. And for the most part, I'm not that interested in photography that is primarily documentary in nature either - even when very well done. The stuff I like best is the photography that plies the ground in between abstraction and documentation.

 

Or maybe I've just been studying the work of Andreas Gursky too much...

 

Cheers,

Eric