Abstract - An exercise in inverting......Comments?

02/15/2005 07:37:32 PM · #1

Hello there!

These pics are my (revised) take on abstract. I'm going for Hot as the evoked feeling with the first. Lush, green, or pure could be applied to the second.

Am I getting the point yet??!

PollyBean

Larger images are at:
//www.pollybean.dsherwin.com/images/Blennerville0013_CoalBox_SM.jpg
//www.pollybean.dsherwin.com/images/Leaves_Green_SM.jpg

Message edited by author 2005-02-21 20:49:32.

02/15/2005 07:55:26 PM · #2

Comments very welcome.

I am quite new to photography and appreciate any comment!

Cheers,

PollyBean

02/15/2005 08:22:29 PM · #3

Paula,

There are many different "views" on what makes an abstract. Personally, to me an abstract doesn't really look like something you recognize. Or if it does, the lines, colors, and forms you see are stronger than the view of the objects you recognize. There was an abstract challenge in May or so of last year (my definition of the challenge, so the objects weren't supposed to be readily recognizable.)

Of your shots, I like the shell best as an abstract. I think it could be even stronger in a close up or tightly cropped view.

02/15/2005 08:59:49 PM · #4

You're right - the pics are probably not strictly "abstract".

Thanks for your comments Neil!

02/16/2005 02:19:37 PM · #5

For any others misinterpreting the meaning of abstract, I found the below link useful.....

P

Abstract Photography Definition

02/16/2005 03:00:43 PM · #6

Originally posted by PollyBean:

For any others misinterpreting the meaning of abstract, I found the below link useful.....

P

Abstract Photography Definition

thanks for that link.... a pretty good discussion on the topic. A quick shuffle through dpc abstract gallery shows many different interpretations and understanding of the term abstract. I tend to agree with Neil's more strict definition of the term abstract. Easily recognizable pictorial representation - regardless of convention used, such as soft focus, geometry, colour shifts & replacement, metaphor or allegory etc. intrudes and clouds what is visually abstract.

Message edited by author 2005-02-16 15:11:15.

02/16/2005 03:22:23 PM · #7

Originally posted by PollyBean:

For any others misinterpreting the meaning of abstract, I found the below link useful.....

P

Abstract Photography Definition

Yes, I've read that before and it illustrates the many views of what is an abstract.

To make my point clearer, the key to me isn't that it is unrecognizable: mainly that the perception of form(s) or color(s) is significantly stronger than your perception of the object in the photo. My photo to the abstract challenge, is a case in point. To me, it's impressionistic, and to a lesser extent abstract. I think it's abstract if you don't immediately and primarily recognize it as a flower. The colors and form are more salient, and emphasize something an ordinary picture would not.

But once you know it is a flower, it's hard not to see it. Yet, the flower itself isn't the subject of the photo, the color and movement based forms are.

So to me the boundaries of an abstract are subtle and case specific. Some may still argue that the tulip shot above ISN'T an abstract. I'm on the fence on that one. It's clearly impressionistic, maybe abstract, depending on the viewer.

But few would argue that this isn't an abstract:

It's an interesting discussion. Maybe later we can look at some other form based abstracts--if there's interest, I'll post some examples from others portfolios. (And hopefully others will too.)

So, poll: is the tulip ("Flow") abstract, or merely impressionistic?

02/16/2005 04:44:38 PM · #8

"Tulip" is on the borderline between Impressionism and Abstraction IMO. I have no trouble calling it an abstract. I consider the following of mine to be an abstraction:

Why? because it deals with a completely arbitrary rearrangement of our preception of depth & space.

Robt.

02/16/2005 05:08:11 PM · #9

Hey there Robt!

I like your abstract photo.

Neil.....Like Robt says, I think tulip is a bit of both (impressionism and abstract).

I think I'm copping on to what it means. (See newer thumbnails above)

PollyBean

02/16/2005 05:15:33 PM · #10

Originally posted by bear_music:

"Tulip" is on the borderline between Impressionism and Abstraction IMO. I have no trouble calling it an abstract. I consider the following of mine to be an abstraction:

Why? because it deals with a completely arbitrary rearrangement of our preception of depth & space.

Robt.

certianly this can be explained in terms of vanishing point and depth of field........

02/16/2005 05:58:11 PM · #11

Except that the smaller bowl's turned "inside out" visually, kind of. It has a tendency to "pop" up and down, be both convex and concave at the same time. That "black" stuff is inverted sopasuds btw. :-)

Robt.

02/16/2005 06:20:56 PM · #12

Stylistic conventions, though useful in creation, do not always make a subject, unidentifiable which I see as the definition.

Mick

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

02/16/2005 06:51:43 PM · #13

I find it interesting that, although I really like many abstract images, I have seldom tried to create any myself. The closest that I've come are probably these photos.

And, I'm not sure that they would be considered truely abstract.

While browsing through the 'Abstract' gallery here on dpchallenge I noticed that many, if not most, of the images are really not abstracts at all.

These are a couple recent challenge entries that I think are abstract, and photos that I really liked.

"LED Crazy" by jeffzoet

"Aliens of the Deep" by Kathryn8

There are lots of others, but it would take me a while to find them.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

02/16/2005 07:20:38 PM · #14

Robt, the bowls themselves come across as a very nice abstract in my opinion, BUT the refrigerator grate and the condensation at the back wall anchor it to a "reality" photo, after a few moments. I think replacing the background around the bowls or reshooting with a different background would indeed work well as an abstract.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

02/16/2005 07:23:08 PM · #15

Just a reminder that photo comment/critique request should be posted to Individual Photograph Discussion and not to the Critique Club folder.

A brief description of the purpose of each folder is available here.

-Terry

02/16/2005 07:24:25 PM · #16

Shapiro,

That would be correct if I were motivated to do so, but I was just experimenting at the time. I could easily 'shop out the details if I wished. Incidentally, the bowls are in my sink :-) They were found objects, I just liked the look of it so I shot 'em and played with the inversion. We do strange things in the winter here.

Robt.

02/16/2005 07:29:58 PM · #17

Mick, I remember that bubble shot. I gave it a good score, and I just looked and in fact even commented back then what a nice abstract it made.

The other photo is less an abstract to me, mainly because of the person, which is reallly to the point this discussion is going--do others see this as abstract? In any case, I'll add that that's a great technique with the laser level. I can see doing some really great abstracts using that alone. The bubbles are also something I've been planning to shoot. I bought a bunch of materials to do some mondo bubbles, and when I get some time, I'm definitely going to try shooting some. I'm a little hesitant to go ahead with my plans though because of the potential mess and getting it on my camera/lenses.

The other examples you picked are all great examples of abstracts, and not at all controversial I'm sure in definition.

Here's some more perhaps borderline images to stimulate discussion.

What about these two:

A.

by dsa157
B.

by banmorn (this is perhaps my favorite image on the site!)

Fujifilm XF 23mm f/2 R WR

02/16/2005 07:33:21 PM · #18

Originally posted by PollyBean:

Hello there!

These pics are my (revised) take on abstract. I'm going for Hot as the evoked feeling with the first. Lush, green, or pure could be applied to the second.

Am I getting the point yet??!

PollyBean

Larger images are under heading Abstract ?.......... at://www.pollybean.dsherwin.com/

Yes, the first one is a very nice abstract IMHO. You might also try cropping a little of the left, and letting the really "wild" part speak for itself.

The second one I have trouble seeing as abstract. I see leafs.

aznym

Fujifilm X-T3

02/16/2005 07:50:07 PM · #19

Thought I'd post this link to yurasocolov's Abstract images. I love them.
Abstract

LEONJR

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

02/16/2005 07:53:03 PM · #20

Forgive me Iam really having a hard time figuring out what exactly is abstract photography? I know its a dumb question but dont forget iam still fairly new to this. Its my understanding that it means different or hard to understand but iam not sure.

aznym

Fujifilm X-T3

Fujifilm XF 23mm f/2 R WR

02/16/2005 08:04:49 PM · #21

To me abstract photography is "not representing or imitating external reality or the objects of nature" - from the dictionary :)

Mick

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

02/16/2005 09:20:54 PM · #22

Originally posted by LEONJR:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Abstract art is now generally understood to mean art that does not depict objects in the natural world, but instead uses shapes and colours in a non-representational or non-objective way. In the early 20th century, the term was more often used to describe art, such as Cubist and Futurist art, that does represent the natural world, but does so by capturing something of its immutable intrinsic qualities rather than by imitating its external appearance.

Abstract pattern making has an ancient history dating back to the earliest decorations on textiles, pottery and so on. However, the idea that the arrangement of shapes and colours is not simply to be understood as design, but as fine art dates from the nineteenth century when photography began to make the illustrative function of visual art obsolete. Even before the widespread use of photography some artists, such as James McNeill Whistler were placing greater emphasis on visual sensation than the depiction of objects. Whistler argued that art should concern itself with the harmonious arrangement of colours, just as music deals with the harmonious arrangement of sounds. Whistler's painting Nocturne in Black and Gold (1875) is often seen as a major move towards abstraction. Later artists such as Wassily Kandinsky argued that modern science dealt with dynamic forces, revealing that matter was ultimately spiritual in character. Art should display the spiritual forces behind the visual world. Wassily Kandinsky and Kasimir Malevich are generally seen as the first fully abstract artists. Kandinky's art is sometimes called 'soft edged', while Malevich's is 'hard edged'. This distinction is repeated in later abstract artists. The blurred, dynamic lines and colors used by Kandinsky developed into Abstract Expressionism, while the use of overlapping or interacting geometrical forms is found in the work of Piet Mondrian and many later artists such as the op artists of the 1960s.

02/16/2005 10:11:26 PM · #23

Originally posted by xion:

To me abstract photography is "not representing or imitating external reality or the objects of nature" - from the dictionary :)

Aznym, here's one for discussion then, again testing the bounds.

Is this abstract? (from yurasocolov's Abstract images):

I bring it up because this is the kind of photo I see shown all the time listed as an abstract. To me it's not really abstract, but it is strongly about color and form. It's just too recognizable.

So part two of this question, which I never had a good answer for: if it's not abstract, what would you call it?

Edit: By the way, thank you for posting that link, that truly is a wonderful portfolio of images.

Message edited by author 2005-02-16 22:12:14.

02/16/2005 10:18:18 PM · #24

There's another menaing of "abstract" which means, essentially, "to remove from context". I think this is more useful, because it's a purer definition, not defined in artistic terms. In this sense, the yurascolov image linked below is an abstract.

Robt.