Abstract - DPChallenge Forums

02/03/2006 10:57:26 AM · #26

Originally posted by Rikki:

this ain't one of those "Slippy" specials right? You know what I'm talkjing about... ummm... think "white projectiles"???

LOL, no, not a 'Slippy Special', unfortunately. It was one of those things where I saw the challenge title and instantly new what I wanted to try. It's extra-sweet for me because I tried to do it as an abstract just out of interest last summer, but my P&S couldn't handle it. Oddly for me, it's not annoying or distasteful.

My only concern is that it has no context, so nobody will know what it is. Though the challenge description clearly states we're NOT supposed to know what it is, I'm guessing most voters will prefer just enough context to get an idea.

I'm all giddy, but I'm sure I'll get all pissy & annoyed when it scores low fives. Hehe.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/03/2006 11:00:52 AM · #27

Originally posted by nshapiro:

When you first look at the shot, what do you see? Do you see the objects as you know them, or do you FIRST see the shapes, the curves and lines, the colors, and then later (maybe) recognize the object as something you know?

That's a better wording of what type of image I think will do well.

Rikki

Canon EOS-20D

02/03/2006 11:05:08 AM · #28

Agreed Neil 100% :) Much better wording.

sfalice

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

02/03/2006 11:06:36 AM · #29

Just do a Jackson Pollock or Kandinsky look-alike and 50 years from now, everyone will think you are a genius. Meanwhile, low 4s for the genius-in-waiting!
;>)

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/03/2006 11:14:13 AM · #30

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Originally posted by nshapiro:
When you first look at the shot, what do you see? Do you see the objects as you know them, or do you FIRST see the shapes, the curves and lines, the colors, and then later (maybe) recognize the object as something you know?

That's a better wording of what type of image I think will do well.

Yup, makes sense, doesn't lead to silly DNMC comments, no obvious handle to vote people down based upon and generally a great suggestion for the definition of 'abstract'

No wonder we got the other version!

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/03/2006 11:37:22 AM · #31

Neil is right, the description for the challenge (challenge details) is unfortunate. It makes it rather difficult to get interested in the challenge.

When I think of "abstract" I think of what is it that makes something what it is, not in the sense of an accurate representation, or "this is what it looks like", but in the sense of distilling the essense of the subject, of getting down to the lines, shapes, colours, textures that make something what it is, that make it beautiful and appealing and unique. I don't know if that is the correct definition of abstract, but it is the framework I use.

Using this framework, objects could still be quite recognizeable, as a matter of fact, I often would hope they are recognizeable even though they are not an accurate representation. This sort of puts me out of running in the challenge :)

My money's also on Bea (-Dax).

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

02/03/2006 12:10:39 PM · #32

Ursula, can you discuss a description change to the site council? I don't think it will force a major change in terms of what people are doing, more for the voter end.

And after all, my March description was what was proposed in a challenge request (and from the original challenge submitter too).

Otherwise, since so many people give 1's for DNMC, people will be afraid to enter.

undieyatch

Olympus E-10

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

02/03/2006 12:15:16 PM · #33

As long as we are conjuring our own definitions of the word abstract and how it may apply to the challenge details - fortunate or unfortunate - I don't know, it would seem to depend upon how one reads the phrase "If it is recognizable as an object - it is not an abstract." As the challenge description reads, it is a near perfect, first entry dictionary listing of the word. I think a good, very focused and primary challenge idea.
It appears that abstraction (a quality) rather than abstract (something apart from concrete existance) is what many seem to really want -

02/03/2006 12:17:53 PM · #34

Originally posted by nshapiro:

Hey, no way, I already took my shot! :-P

02/03/2006 12:21:28 PM · #35

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Originally posted by nshapiro:
Ursula, can you discuss a description change to the site council? I don't think it will force a major change in terms of what people are doing, more for the voter end.

And after all, my March description was what was proposed in a challenge request (and from the original challenge submitter too).

Otherwise, since so many people give 1's for DNMC, people will be afraid to enter.

Hey, no way, I already took my shot! :-P

A revised description would not exclude your shot :)

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

02/03/2006 12:30:59 PM · #36

Originally posted by undieyatch:

You're right, abstraction and abstract (as an adjective) are not the same. Yet, if you think of abstract as apart from concrete, this does not mean "not recognizeable", does it?

I guess if we get into an argument about what's real then we're in big trouble :)

undieyatch

Olympus E-10

02/03/2006 01:02:07 PM · #37

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by undieyatch:
As long as we are conjuring our own definitions of the word abstract and how it may apply to the challenge details - fortunate or unfortunate - I don't know, it would seem to depend upon how one reads the phrase "If it is recognizable as an object - it is not an abstract." As the challenge description reads, it is a near perfect, first entry dictionary listing of the word. I think a good, very focused and primary challenge idea.
It appears that abstraction (a quality) rather than abstract (something apart from concrete existance) is what many seem to really want -

You're right, abstraction and abstract (as an adjective) are not the same. Yet, if you think of abstract as apart from concrete, this does not mean "not recognizeable", does it?

I guess if we get into an argument about what's real then we're in big trouble :)

The context - I think is the key, to an element of realistic and recognizeable in an abstraction or even a abstract. I think a viewer's reaction is very important to abstract. What I like about abstract...... The artist and his work is telling us something, it becomes the responsibility of the viewer to determine what it is and what value it has.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

02/03/2006 01:12:13 PM · #38

Originally posted by undieyatch:

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by undieyatch:
As long as we are conjuring our own definitions of the word abstract and how it may apply to the challenge details - fortunate or unfortunate - I don't know, it would seem to depend upon how one reads the phrase "If it is recognizable as an object - it is not an abstract." As the challenge description reads, it is a near perfect, first entry dictionary listing of the word. I think a good, very focused and primary challenge idea.
It appears that abstraction (a quality) rather than abstract (something apart from concrete existance) is what many seem to really want -

You're right, abstraction and abstract (as an adjective) are not the same. Yet, if you think of abstract as apart from concrete, this does not mean "not recognizeable", does it?

I guess if we get into an argument about what's real then we're in big trouble :)

The context - I think is the key, to an element of realistic and recognizeable in an abstraction or even a abstract. I think a viewer's reaction is very important to abstract. What I like about abstract...... The artist and his work is telling us something, it becomes the responsibility of the viewer to determine what it is and what value it has.

I don't understand your first sentence. I wonder if you could explain further.

My gut reaction to the second part of your statement is, "No! That's all wrong!"

A viewers reaction is important, but not more so in abstract than in other art forms.

But why would you say it is the viewers responsibility to determine what it is and what value it has? Would you mind elaborating on that.

undieyatch

Olympus E-10

02/03/2006 01:26:25 PM · #39

In what context is this reality? Dali shows us reality, but it is not. In abstract there is no narrative given, no story, no reality - just what the viewer brings to it. The artist must be very humble, and cannot lead, but only give clues. The viewer determines what the abstract means. I am signing off..... have an errand.