| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/17/2006 02:14:26 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by jaded_youth:
I was COMPLETELY prepared to go the traditionally abstract road when i read the challenge title. but after reading the forums i was confused as to what to do so I specifically asked if it should be recognizable or not and was told that it should have been called "creative food" as abstract would not score well. so I went for creative because I wanted a fair score for my WPL team and now i have a photo thats getting slammed in the voting AND isnt even abstract. had i just went with my first instinct I at least HOPE i'd be scoring better. |
This is why I don't bother reading those threads anymore - most of the arguing is just meant to sway voters to that person's particular entry and is of little to no value whatsoever. There are two constants that I've discovered: (1) DPC voters inexplicably hate abstract (I personally love it) and (2) if you have to justify your entry with obscure definitions and technicalities then it's not going to do well. I research and decide for myself what will meet the challenge. No one's DNMC'd me yet and I score much better. My Abstract Food entry isn't doing spectacularly, but it's a good sight better than a lot of what's been posted in the scores thread today.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 02:22:01 PM · #27 |
| yeah. i usually look to those threads for confirmation of definition but I've learned it doesnt help. I might as well google it. lol |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 02:33:43 PM · #28 |
| but don't confuse abstract with abstract expressionism. There is a difference and it seems what you all are looking for ('unrecognizable') falls under abstract expressionism rather than just abstract. |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 02:34:27 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
A bag head left me a comment giving me the definition of abstract. Apparently mine isn't abstract enough or is it? Who knows, who cares. I'll just take my medicine and keep going. |
That's probably Routerguy666 - he bagheaded himself after a flood of hate mail over it. Check the scores thread for the heated discussion. |
LOL... and what is the definition of a baghead? I may have to add that one to my daily vocabulary!! |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 02:43:07 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by otisXmike:
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
A bag head left me a comment giving me the definition of abstract. Apparently mine isn't abstract enough or is it? Who knows, who cares. I'll just take my medicine and keep going. |
That's probably Routerguy666 - he bagheaded himself after a flood of hate mail over it. Check the scores thread for the heated discussion. |
LOL... and what is the definition of a baghead? I may have to add that one to my daily vocabulary!! |
they are hidden when commenting during a challenge. their avatar has a bag over his head. -------> 
Message edited by author 2006-07-17 14:44:48. |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 02:44:14 PM · #31 |
If there is anything to be learned here is DON'T go by the challenge theme or description! Instead go by what previous results have shown and if there aren't any well then just opt out like I did. Although I knew if I shot a macro (food still identifible) or cutsy food arrangement it would probably do well but that's not meeting the actual challenge posted so I decided not to enter and will probably not even vote.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 02:48:48 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by yanko:
If there is anything to be learned here is DON'T go by the challenge theme or description! Instead go by what previous results have shown and if there aren't any well then just opt out like I did. Although I knew if I shot a macro (food still identifible) or cutsy food arrangement it would probably do well but that's not meeting the actual challenge posted so I decided not to enter and will probably not even vote. |
I noticed something though... DPC like learning how to ride bike... After you learn how people vote here, you won't forget, and you have "a lot more" idea for your next challenge photos... after many bruises :P |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 02:52:38 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
Originally posted by otisXmike:
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
A bag head left me a comment giving me the definition of abstract. Apparently mine isn't abstract enough or is it? Who knows, who cares. I'll just take my medicine and keep going. |
That's probably Routerguy666 - he bagheaded himself after a flood of hate mail over it. Check the scores thread for the heated discussion. |
LOL... and what is the definition of a baghead? I may have to add that one to my daily vocabulary!! |
they are hidden when commenting during a challenge. their avatar has a bag over his head. -------> |
weinies... it's not like it's real life where you can get punched in the nose for being an ass! |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 02:56:53 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by naldslc:
You know Mike, this is exactly why I didn't enter. Abstract is just that, abstract, it varies from person to person. What's abstract to me might not be an abstract to you. Take it with a grain of salt and don't let it get to you, if you're happy with the shot and it succeeds with one person you've done your job. |
er, some things, frankly, just don't work that way.
Abstract is defined in and of itslef, as something that consists of lines and shapes and colors, that are not immediately recognizeable as another object. They are supposed to studies in light and compositions, not recognizeable objects.
If it's weird and you can tell what it is, it's just impressionistic or surreal, not abstract.
What ticked me off, is that the Abstract Macro challenge has Blue and Red ribbon winniers that were surreal, not abstract. |
You're proving my point precisely... :D
abstract
edit to fix link
I stand corrected....see Bear's post below. ;)
Message edited by author 2006-07-17 15:14:02.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 02:59:15 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
but don't confuse abstract with abstract expressionism. There is a difference and it seems what you all are looking for ('unrecognizable') falls under abstract expressionism rather than just abstract. |
I disagree. The unrecognizable falls into both categories and the latter from what I understand doesn't even apply in any way to photography just painting. Besides, that's not really the point. The point is voters require the opposite i.e. recognizability and that's most definitely not a requirement for an abstract image. Sure something in the shot could be recognizable but if that's the overpowering element it's not an abstract image, IMO.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 03:01:59 PM · #36 |
There are some great food shots that are not abstract, and a couple of abstracts that may not be food. (And a couple that are not abstract or food.) While you are not supposed to immediately recognize the subject, I do want to know that food was used in the shot, either by looking long enough or by the title.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 03:02:15 PM · #37 |
| I wouldn't surprised if Langdon pulls the plug in the middle to reconsider... because of too many questions! |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 03:08:51 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
There are some great food shots that are not abstract, and a couple of abstracts that may not be food. (And a couple that are not abstract or food.) While you are not supposed to immediately recognize the subject, I do want to know that food was used in the shot, either by looking long enough or by the title. |
Mine is abstract, mine is food, and you can tell what food it is by looking long enough or reading the title.
And if I do say so, is a very interesting photo that is lit properly and in focus.
Still scoring just over a 5. |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 03:09:16 PM · #39 |
I find these continued battles over the "meaning" of "abstract" to be borderline hilarious, frankly.
The term "abstract" had an existence long before it was first applied to art. To "abstract" something is to "extract the essence from", basically. For example, one of the ways I earned money a few years back was to do freelance abstraction of business books; that is to say, companies would hire me to read a book and write an "abstract" of it, a 2,000 word presentation of the key ideas and concepts of the book.
When "abstract" was first applied to art, it was used to differentiate the "simplifiers" from the "pictorialists", more or less. Van Gogh, for example, painted abstractions. His paintings are not true to life, they abstract the essence of what he saw.
Those who think "abstract painting" means Jackson Pollack and Robert Motherwell are confusing "abstraction" with "abstract expressionism". In a very real sense, your children make "abstract art" when they first start drawing stick figures and 2-dimensional houses in distorted perspectives. The history of Pablo Picasso's art shows a deliberate attempt by him to return his mind to a childlike state of seeing.
To demand that an image be unrecognizable to be considered abstract is doing a grave disservice to many thoughtful photographers in DPC. A significant number of the images we have been given to judge succeed admirably at reducing a foodstuff to its essence, visually, and that is absolutely what abstraction is about.
IMO, of course.
Robt.
Incidentally, these hardliners appear to be in the minority; my own image, which is, in the terms outlined above, a "recognizable" shot that qualifies as an abstract, is doing very well.
Message edited by author 2006-07-17 15:13:27.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 03:12:40 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I find these continued battles over the "meaning" of "abstract" to be borderline hilarious, frankly.
The term "abstract" had an existence long before it was first applied to art. To "abstract" something is to "extract the essence from", basically. For example, one of the ways I earned money a few years back was to do freelance abstraction of business books; that is to say, companies would hire me to read a book and write an "abstract" of it, a 2,000 word presentation of the key ideas and concepts of the book.
When "abstract" was first applied to art, it was used to differentiate the "simplifiers" from the "pictorialists", more or less. Van Gogh, for example, painted abstractions. His paintings are not true to life, they abstract the essence of what he saw.
Those who think "abstract painting" means Jackson Pollack and Robert Motherwell are confusing "abstraction" with "abstract expressionism". In a very real sense, your children make "abstract art" when they first start drawing stick figures and 2-dimensional houses in distorted perspectives. The history of Pablo Picasso's art shows a deliberate attempt by him to return his mind to a childlike state of seeing.
To demand that an image be unrecognizable to be considered abstract is doing a grave disservice to many thoughtful photographers in DPC. A significant number of the images we have been given to judge succeed admirably at reducing a foodstuff to its essence, visually, and that is absolutely what abstraction is about.
IMO, of course.
Robt. |
Hot damn my man, you RULE! Thank you again Bear for your thoughtfulness and intelligence.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 03:12:40 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by dahkota:
but don't confuse abstract with abstract expressionism. There is a difference and it seems what you all are looking for ('unrecognizable') falls under abstract expressionism rather than just abstract. |
I disagree. The unrecognizable falls into both categories and the latter from what I understand doesn't even apply in any way to photography just painting. Besides, that's not really the point. The point is voters require the opposite i.e. recognizability and that's most definitely not a requirement for an abstract image. Sure something in the shot could be recognizable but if that's the overpowering element it's not an abstract image, IMO. |
I didn't say it didn't. I said the requirement some of you are putting on abstract (unrecognizability) is not a requirement of abstract, but more associated with abstract expressionism.
Hmm... not sure I understand your next statement with regard to photography but I consider it art, just like painting. I fully believe you have abstract expressionism in photography - look at nshapiro's work for example.
I don't think it is recognizability per se, that the voter's require; recognizable shape or form, might be what they are looking for. Overpowering element or noticible element? Huge difference. At any rate, I think everyone is assuming that the voter's are going against them - those that created recognizable abstracts, those that created unrecognizable abstracts, those that created really bizarre representational food sculptures (:))...
At any rate, I fully believe the top images will be those that have a great balance of form and color. Maybe you know what the form and color is by looking at it, but no one said it had to be extremely abstract, did they? |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 03:14:23 PM · #42 |
Bear,
I think the point of this thread was not demanding the unrecognizable but the feeling that the voters were/are demanding the recognizable and that's not a prequisite for an abstract image. Which I expected before hand but I just thought I summarize what I believe the true content is.
Message edited by author 2006-07-17 15:15:57.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 03:29:06 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I didn't say it didn't. I said the requirement some of you are putting on abstract (unrecognizability) is not a requirement of abstract, but more associated with abstract expressionism.
Hmm... not sure I understand your next statement with regard to photography but I consider it art, just like painting. I fully believe you have abstract expressionism in photography - look at nshapiro's work for example. |
He certainly has nice work but I would categorize it as more digital art more than anything else but that's another topic altogether. ;)
Originally posted by dahkota:
I don't think it is recognizability per se, that the voter's require; |
We will see but it's a reasonable assumption to make looking at past abstract results and the trends towards more recognizability in the top ten from the first abstract challenge that ran.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 04:01:38 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by amber:
I've always been amazed at the number of people who say they didn't read the challenge description before they entered...bizarre! |
I'm always amused at the number of people who obviously can't work out what the challenge description means when they come to vote....
Roger |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 05:13:14 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by focuspoint:
Originally posted by yanko:
If there is anything to be learned here is DON'T go by the challenge theme or description! Instead go by what previous results have shown and if there aren't any well then just opt out like I did. Although I knew if I shot a macro (food still identifible) or cutsy food arrangement it would probably do well but that's not meeting the actual challenge posted so I decided not to enter and will probably not even vote. |
I noticed something though... DPC like learning how to ride bike... After you learn how people vote here, you won't forget, and you have "a lot more" idea for your next challenge photos... after many bruises :P |
Yes, IF your one and only objective is to get a good score. I really feel I created a piece of abstract art-- one that I have envisioned creating for years (with paint)-- with my camera and some food. It's lovely and I fully intend on getting a large print and hanging it on my wall. It's straddling the 5.0 line, and I'm okay with that because it's art, and it's subjective. Period.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 05:36:33 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by annasense:
Originally posted by focuspoint:
Originally posted by yanko:
If there is anything to be learned here is DON'T go by the challenge theme or description! Instead go by what previous results have shown and if there aren't any well then just opt out like I did. Although I knew if I shot a macro (food still identifible) or cutsy food arrangement it would probably do well but that's not meeting the actual challenge posted so I decided not to enter and will probably not even vote. |
I noticed something though... DPC like learning how to ride bike... After you learn how people vote here, you won't forget, and you have "a lot more" idea for your next challenge photos... after many bruises :P |
Yes, IF your one and only objective is to get a good score. I really feel I created a piece of abstract art-- one that I have envisioned creating for years (with paint)-- with my camera and some food. It's lovely and I fully intend on getting a large print and hanging it on my wall. It's straddling the 5.0 line, and I'm okay with that because it's art, and it's subjective. Period. |
Yes, and we hear this quite a bit. But remember, a good number of us are on WPL teams or in other unofficial site competitions, where the scores DO matter.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 05:47:33 PM · #47 |
| I knew that an abstract image would score low, so I lowered my expectations and entered one any way. And it is scoring sub 5's. And I am good with that. |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 10:59:36 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Mine is abstract, mine is food, and you can tell what food it is by looking long enough or reading the title.
And if I do say so, is a very interesting photo that is lit properly and in focus.
Still scoring just over a 5. |
Hey, we're like twins. I took the same approach and I have the same type of score so far.
My first shot was just lines and color. I liked the way it looked, but I could imagine voters saying "this doesn't say food to me." So I went with something where the first thing to hit you is the shape and color, but you can tell what it is without too much trouble.
Meanwhile, I'm very happy because regardless of DPC votes, a good friend who's very artistic told me she loved it. :)
For those of you in the WPL, I understand that votes matter to you. I guess you really have to go with what gets voted high much more than pure definitions, regardless of how right you are.
I look forward to participating in such competitions eventually, and then I'll have to do the same thing. |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 11:35:19 PM · #49 |
With Great appreciation to the remarks made by OtisXmike and Bear Music among others, the occasional inclusion of an Abstract category helps us learn.
A whole lot more photographers now have a good grounding on what Abstract means.
In the short term, this is creating some pain in scoring. In the long term? Well it's knowledge you might not otherwise acquire.
Not a bad exchange. |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 12:12:04 AM · #50 |
Abstract has many various styles, using patterns, shapes, lines or color, rather than realistic likeness.
In this case being "Abstract Food", it becomes much broader, in the various ways one can do this. We have so many differant forms of abstract, so lets not be to bogged down to one style, and open our eyes to many variuos results, re "Abstract Food".....
This was a fun challenge, so enjoy.....
|
|
