| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/14/2010 07:13:13 PM · #26 |
any discussion of abstraction in photography has to deal with TWO ofs. With a drawing, if it looks like a face, then it's a picture *of* a face. With photography, there is the "what does it look like" *of* but also the "what did I point my camera at" *of*. The second *of* can be obliterated, but not the first, not completely. The mind will always make assumptions and project its own dreams onto any image. Therefore, no image is purely abstract, and if it were, it would hold no interest.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2010 07:30:18 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
...Therefore, no image is purely abstract, and if it were, it would hold no interest. |
Kind sir, I would deign to refute this hypothesis:
If an image be truly abstract, then the impression of the meaning is purely in the mind of the viewer. If this be the case, then a sample of viewers will give widely varying interpretations of the image; similar to a Rorschach test. That does not, however preclude the image from evoking emotion, even strong emotion in viewers.
Edit to fix messed up quote
Message edited by author 2010-12-14 19:30:36. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 07:38:18 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by posthumous:
...Therefore, no image is purely abstract, and if it were, it would hold no interest. |
Kind sir, I would deign to refute this hypothesis:
If an image be truly abstract, then the impression of the meaning is purely in the mind of the viewer. If this be the case, then a sample of viewers will give widely varying interpretations of the image; similar to a Rorschach test. That does not, however preclude the image from evoking emotion, even strong emotion in viewers.
Edit to fix messed up quote |
My definition of "pure" is rather rigid here. Pure, perfect, ultimate abstraction would not allow for any interpretation. Our minds would not allow such a thing. The artist must find a balance between abstraction and representation, always. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 07:41:14 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
My definition of "pure" is rather rigid here. Pure, perfect, ultimate abstraction would not allow for any interpretation. Our minds would not allow such a thing. The artist must find a balance between abstraction and representation, always. |
Like alcohol, abstraction can be close to pure, but absolute purity can not be attained. Even an image consisting entirely of one pure tone will be interpreted. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 07:58:06 PM · #30 |
| I've no problem with abstract photos, but it shouldn't be an excuse for badly taken photos. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 08:03:14 PM · #31 |
Puppy Bear, if you create an image that fascinates me and captures my soul, then I want to hear all about it in excruciating detail! I am all ears! I will take you and Penny out to lunch, ask for an autograph, and pay premuim price for your hard work! Sometimes, the stories behind of the work of art may be just as fascinating as the piece itself.
However, if your image is a "turd", then don't expect any fan mail from me and I will not care what the subject is.
Art is about...The Experience!
When you own enough "experiences"...then you become a Collector!
|
|
|
|
12/14/2010 08:04:19 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by hajeka:
I've no problem with abstract photos, but it shouldn't be an excuse for badly taken photos. |
This would, of course, be true for any genre.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2010 08:12:49 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by hajeka:
I've no problem with abstract photos, but it shouldn't be an excuse for badly taken photos. |
Leave my portfolio out of this, please. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 08:24:52 PM · #34 |
I really would like to return to one of  zeuszen's earlier points: the challenge is to take the damn photo, not to be a wise ass about other peeps's photos. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 08:24:59 PM · #35 |
Interesting discussion. I've brought it up before, but it's worth repeating. I think there are two schools of thought with art in general, and abstract art in specific. In the first, the artist crafts the purpose of the piece; in the second, the viewer crafts the purpose of the piece. These two schools are not necessarily clearly delimited and there is room for gray areas. I find myself subscribing to the first school more than the second. When I enjoy a piece of work, I want to enjoy the *why*. Why did the artist choose to do this? Because of this, the *what* could be important. To be clear though, if the *what* doesn't help convey the *why*, then it isn't important.
Other artists would rather put up the art and allow the viewer to take away whatever message they find within. I think DPC has members like this and in that regard knowing *what* it is is unimportant.
That's probably just really muddy blathering... ;) |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 08:30:39 PM · #36 |
And what if the image isn't at all abstract, but an abstraction of a larger view, cleverly disguised? :-)
 |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 09:38:51 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Interesting discussion. I've brought it up before, but it's worth repeating. I think there are two schools of thought with art in general, and abstract art in specific. In the first, the artist crafts the purpose of the piece; in the second, the viewer crafts the purpose of the piece. These two schools are not necessarily clearly delimited and there is room for gray areas. I find myself subscribing to the first school more than the second. When I enjoy a piece of work, I want to enjoy the *why*. Why did the artist choose to do this? Because of this, the *what* could be important. To be clear though, if the *what* doesn't help convey the *why*, then it isn't important.
Other artists would rather put up the art and allow the viewer to take away whatever message they find within. I think DPC has members like this and in that regard knowing *what* it is is unimportant.
That's probably just really muddy blathering... ;) |
I am of the school of though that the artist should craft a piece whose purpose is to allow a viewer to craft the purpose of the piece. In other words, I belong to a school of purposes. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 09:40:16 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
And what if the image isn't at all abstract, but an abstraction of a larger view, cleverly disguised? :-) |
that's an obvious symptom of a disturbed mind, it should be ignored. and forgiven.
(and play nice Deb, or I'll post your "happy to see me?" abstract)
|
|
|
|
12/14/2010 09:46:55 PM · #39 |
Heh! I love the shot. Just a bit disturbed that I thought it to be a dog. I should have paid closer attention. :-)
But in light of the original post (and at the same time the "does the title matter" discussion elsewhere), for those that were "fooled" into appreciating something they thought was something else, does it matter? I certainly don't mind that it was a goat and not a dog. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 10:13:36 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Heh! I love the shot. Just a bit disturbed that I thought it to be a dog. I should have paid closer attention. :-)
But in light of the original post (and at the same time the "does the title matter" discussion elsewhere), for those that were "fooled" into appreciating something they thought was something else, does it matter? I certainly don't mind that it was a goat and not a dog. |
Why should you? The real issue would be, does anyone care that it is an animal, not a hillside? Certainly, when I first looked at it my sense of scale (due to the straw bits) was placing this as a grass-covered hillside, thatchy grass, and it took me a while to dial in my presumptions, at which point the animality of it "popped" for me. Marvelous image, I thought :-) If anyone *cares* that it's not "really" a landscape-with-horizon, well... I'm sorry for their lack of stretch, basically. A wildly creative take on the challenge, of you ask me, and a wonderful image in and of its own right as well.
R.
ETA: Deb, I'm aware you love it; I'm not addressing my querulousness at you, but at any hypothetical voter who might feel cheated or fooled by the image.
Message edited by author 2010-12-14 22:15:57. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 10:28:59 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"Just how important is it that we know what an image is "of", anyway?"
|
It obviously depends on the viewer. Everyone has expectations when they are looking at photography (or anything for that matter.) Some viewers require a visual connection with the subject. Others may be able to connect with an idea or a mood created by the image. It's all in the biases created through who you (the viewer) are and what you believe.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2010 10:32:08 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Ah, but (s)he can! In my humble opinion, the important thing is the *communication* that takes place between the photographer and viewer. If the image successfully connects with the viewer and creates an impression that relates to the challenge topic, the photographer has been successful. Whether this connection is direct, or indirect as through an abstract image, is irrelevant. |
This is pretty much where I stand on the issue. However, I also agree with  posthumous that a pure abstraction is lacking interest, or perhaps to phrase it better, meaning (to the individual).
Relating back to the original point of the thread, though, I have posted comments about how I know not what the subject matter is, so I want to explain why I say such things. Take a comment of mine from a photo currently in voting- it starts out with "I've no clue what I'm looking at, but I love it. This is just so awesome."
I'm pretty sure I've said similar before, as well. Now, I say things like that because I see DPC as a learning site, as a discussion of process, so I am inherently curious about how everything is accomplished (this is inherent in my nature anyway, but exacerbated by the learning environment of DPC). It is perhaps a challenge to me when I cannot decipher or make sense of things in a photo, and I welcome that. Knowing WHAT something is, to me, is separate from my enjoyment of the image as a whole. In all cases, though, knowing only adds to my appreciation and wonder. My compulsion to know has ends completely separated from aesthetics. Seeing and knowing. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 10:45:36 PM · #43 |
Here, JJ's use of screen resolution and background noise turned the "cell phone guy" into a subtle abstract. This is a case where the viewer's correct interpretation of the abstract is necessary to understand the story, but is also a case where it is not necessary to understand the story to appreciate the photo.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2010 10:51:05 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Just a bit disturbed that I thought it to be a dog. |
I was disturbed that posthumous was so intimate with my goat's back.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2010 11:00:01 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Just a bit disturbed that I thought it to be a dog. |
I was disturbed that posthumous was so intimate with my goat's back. |
I can't fault you there. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 11:04:45 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Just a bit disturbed that I thought it to be a dog. |
I was disturbed that posthumous was so intimate with my goat's back. |
I can't fault you there. |
Sorry, but that goat has fooled me before. I learned my lesson. |
|
|
|
12/15/2010 03:06:39 AM · #47 |
Something I've only realised just now: When I easily recognise the "of" in a photo, I do not search for anything more. When the "of" is not obvoius, I need to, and want to investigate and get to an answer. The result is that subtle commentary in an otherwise easy photo is currently lost on me, (damn, will have to change - hate change)and I get a nice warm feeling when, now and then, I do "get" the strange photo.
I do love commentary on my photo's ever so much, so to me that is the best possible way to continue getting an understanding of the different way people take photographs, and appreciate photographs. |
|
|
|
12/15/2010 04:20:46 AM · #48 |
| I tend to think that photographers, like spirit mediums, should just keep their noses out of it when not in the act. I'm not particularly interested in what they have to say on the matter and their time is best spent on logistics such as booking the village hall, pasting up some posters, getting a new hair-do and a nice suit for the evening etc. |
|
|
|
12/15/2010 09:55:03 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
I tend to think that photographers, like spirit mediums, should just keep their noses out of it when not in the act. I'm not particularly interested in what they have to say on the matter and their time is best spent on logistics such as booking the village hall, pasting up some posters, getting a new hair-do and a nice suit for the evening etc. |
Oh Clive! This post is priceless...LOL!
|
|
|
|
12/15/2010 11:17:30 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
I tend to think that photographers, like spirit mediums, should just keep their noses out of it when not in the act. I'm not particularly interested in what they have to say on the matter and their time is best spent on logistics such as booking the village hall, pasting up some posters, getting a new hair-do and a nice suit for the evening etc. |
exactly so. thank god I'm not a photographer. |
|
