DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Abstraction in Photography
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 52, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/19/2011 12:34:41 PM · #1


So I posted this image earlier and received some interesting comments, but there seems to be an ongoing conflict in the definition of abstract......the image is the beach broken down in to elements of texture, movement, and light.

I enjoyed mariuca's comment in reference to jmritz's comment.

Originally posted by mariuca:
I agree full-hearted with "wonderful" but this is not abstract to me if one defines abstract by its first dictionary definition: "Considered apart from concrete existence".
In psychiatry 'fugue is a dreamlike altered state of consciousness, lasting from a few hours to several days, during which a person loses his memory for his previous life and often wanders away from home'.

But this is a splendid representation of TERRA MOBILIS.

So...my interpretation of abstract has evolved over time in part from bear_music who made the following observations at my request earlier today:

1. My preferred definition of "abstract", as applied to art, is that to abstract a thing is to reduce it to its essentials. In that sense, this is definitely an abstract.

2. Even by mariuca's preferred definition, I think it's an abstraction: I think the image moves away from "concrete existence" very nicely, I think you have captured the idea or concept of the seashore more than a specific piece of seashore here-and-now.

3. mariuca references the psychiatric concept of "fugue", and seems to be suggesting that this image is at odds with that. I don't agree with this, if that's what's being implied: I think the image DOES align well with the concept of a fugue state, a sort of misty breaking-down of reality.

However, that wasn't the "fugue" I saw when I viewed the image. Instead, I saw the musical idea of "fugue", the repetitive-yet-evolving patterns of it. So "fugue" works for me on several levels.

4. "Terra Mobilis" refers to the idea of a mobile, mutable, and potentially dangerous Nature. While I understand what Mariuca is getting at, I wouldn't, personally, think this image is an especially strong evocation of that.

Discuss.
 03/19/2011 12:44:06 PM · #2
I was aligned with music and beauty rather than earthquakes. I also like your/Bear's definition of abstract in art. But I thought that there should be a purpose in reduction to essentials - the image should convey a thought or a feeling that would not be possible by making a realistic photo of a subject. I don't like the idea of experimenting with abstracts without a reason.

PS In case some contributors did not read my earlier comment on your photo I am quoting it here:
"I thought it was about music (Bach). Beautiful, precise and eternal.
I like the change of the direction of the textures with the band of light running between them. Nice shades of brown with the velvety feel. Overall great photo. 1x candidate.
Is it just long exposure or also multilayer? (I am still trying to learn)

PS Just realized a fugue is made of 3 parts - this image is very clever too"


Message edited by author 2011-03-19 12:46:05.
 03/19/2011 01:16:07 PM · #3
I guess my definition of abstract is a little more technical sounding, but ultimately, I think it works out the same. I consider an abstract to be an image that concentrates on the forms, textures colors and lightplay than on the subject itself. The actual subject is not what is being photographed.
 03/19/2011 01:53:49 PM · #4
Originally posted by bspurgeon:


So I posted this image earlier and received some interesting comments, but there seems to be an ongoing conflict in the definition of abstract......the image is the beach broken down in to elements of texture, movement, and light.

Discuss.

This theme is as old the the pyramids, (no joke) but more to the case, abstract art took roots from the Romantics and the Impressionists.
I just posted the following in the Hidden Gem for March SC where this week the theme is "abstracts":

Abstract has a lot of meanings so I go for meaning #6 (!):
"Having an intellectual and affective artistic content that depends solely on intrinsic form rather than on narrative content or pictorial representation"

In school (Beaux Arts) we spent many nights talking about the subject, and that was post Kandinsky, the Russian Constructivists or Pollock's era. People still struggle with the notion and on occasion throw rotten eggs to it.
In general we stick to:
Abstract art uses a visual language of form, color and line to create a composition which may exist with a degree of independence from visual references in the world.

To me your references were very clear and before writing Mobilis (alas, so much in the news) I just wrote TERRA which your photo so persuasively refers to. My first instinct though was to write "The Music of the Spheres" but I shied from its preciousness.
 03/19/2011 02:04:47 PM · #5
Originally posted by bspurgeon:


So...my interpretation of abstract has evolved over time in part from bear_music who made the following observations at my request earlier today:

1. My preferred definition of "abstract", as applied to art, is that to abstract a thing is to reduce it to its essentials. In that sense, this is definitely an abstract.

Discuss.


If Robert bear_music refers to Mondrian, this is a valid point. But abstract art was/is for art's sake also without the "reduction to the essentials". Abstract artists ARE CREATING the essential.

I humbly submit two of my exercises that were inspired by Mondrian by going to the "essence" of a tree

03/19/2011 02:07:23 PM · #6
Originally posted by mariuca:

In general we stick to:
Abstract art uses a visual language of form, color and line to create a composition which may exist with a degree of independence from visual references in the world.

To me your references were very clear and before writing Mobilis (alas, so much in the news) I just wrote TERRA which your photo so persuasively refers to. My first instinct though was to write "The Music of the Spheres" but I shied from its preciousness.


I think, for me, the key is the underlined ΓΆ€” I think it's not necessary to be unrecognizable, to be abstract. The measure is in the "degree" ΓΆ€” and that's of course a fuzzy line. Here's the way it works for me: I can go to a specific beach, and I can try to use light, form, and movement to create an image that captures the essence of an idealized beach-out-of-time, and that is, in the purest sense, the abstraction of a beach.

R.
 03/19/2011 02:11:43 PM · #7
Originally posted by mariuca:

If Robert bear_music refers to Mondrian, this is a valid point. But abstract art was/is for art's sake also without the "reduction to the essentials". Abstract artists ARE CREATING the essential.

I humbly submit two of my exercises that were inspired by Mondrian by going to the "essence" of a tree


But, you have done exactly what I described: you have taken the image of a tree and you have reduced it to the essence of the tree, the essential tree. It could be reduced even further, of course, to pure gesture with no form at all, but...

"Reducing to essentials" vs "creating the essential" is not really an issue, in my mind; they refer to the same process, inasmuch as the process is mental or conceptual.

R.
 03/19/2011 02:32:51 PM · #8
I'd like to hear more on this.

My sense of abstract art is that it conveys an essence or at least stimulates the right brain, and initially eludes or bypasses the easy analysis of the left brain. It is more than the sum of the abstractions of its individual features. I don't think it can be rigourously defined, however, because even the most banal and so-called graphic pictures can provoke a reaction in the right brain.

I like all three interpretations of Ben's image: musical fugue, pschological fugue ( mariuca's brief description is nicely poetic and better, I think, than the clinical description of this state), and "terra mobilis" in all its senses. They amplify the image rather than confine it.

Ben's image and many others on this site which stimulate my perception require rather a long pause to enter the realms summoned up. I regret feeling that I have not the time to make comments on them that would do them justice. (It has taken me a chunk of morning to write even this).

03/19/2011 03:52:16 PM · #9
I find this fascinating that, it many ways, a given individual's perception of abstraction differs in presentation which is guided by their own version of abstraction which ultimately is universally the same, but not understood to be the same.
 03/19/2011 04:02:31 PM · #10
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
I find this fascinating that, it many ways, a given individual's perception of abstraction differs in presentation which is guided by their own version of abstraction which ultimately is universally the same, but not understood to be the same.
Ha! To that :)
I am afraid in my case left brain always tries to take over :)
 03/19/2011 04:20:51 PM · #11
Originally posted by marnet:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
I find this fascinating that, it many ways, a given individual's perception of abstraction differs in presentation which is guided by their own version of abstraction which ultimately is universally the same, but not understood to be the same.
Ha! To that :)
I am afraid in my case left brain always tries to take over :)

PS Just realized that my comment could make some wonder if any part of my brain is functioning! :) :)
 03/19/2011 04:20:58 PM · #12
I think "essence" is irrelevant to whether or not something is abstract, at least visually. For me, abstraction means little more than non-representational.

True abstraction is boring, because it represents something. But what's wonderful about abstraction is that it almost always fails, and tends to represent something, just not in the usual way (Nude Descending a Staircase is the classic example).
 03/19/2011 04:47:16 PM · #13
??
 03/19/2011 04:54:58 PM · #14
Deciphering Don...the perfect abstraction is an abstraction that does not fail through representation of self yet becomes a success via representaion of something.
 03/19/2011 05:34:57 PM · #15
being and not being that is in question.
 03/19/2011 06:08:23 PM · #16
maybe I'm being too abstract
 03/19/2011 06:23:15 PM · #17
by zeuszen

Closer to what Don described.
 03/19/2011 07:03:53 PM · #18
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
by zeuszen

Closer to what Don described.


right, no "essence" there, beyond the graceful composition, but it fails to be truly non-representational. We think of tearing, the shapes evoke images, memories, a llama?
 03/19/2011 07:16:09 PM · #19
I would say that is a very tough concept to photogragh. Without light, tones, and shapes, we are left with nothing. If we use these elements, it will likely evoke thoughts in the viewer of some past experience. This makes us human.



Even a massively blurry image from John ( jmritz) evokes something, although it may take a few days to sink in.



03/19/2011 07:40:31 PM · #20
Pleasing shapes and forms. Interpret it as you like, or don't if you prefer not to. It's like seeing pictures in clouds.
03/19/2011 07:53:12 PM · #21
Originally posted by posthumous:
I think "essence" is irrelevant to whether or not something is abstract, at least visually. For me, abstraction means little more than non-representational.

True abstraction is boring, because it represents something. But what's wonderful about abstraction is that it almost always fails, and tends to represent something, just not in the usual way (Nude Descending a Staircase is the classic example).


For me Duchamps' nude descending ... is clearly part of Futurism and Cubism leading to Dadaism.
I associate Rothko with Abstract Art as a knee jerk reaction of the brain!
Well, all this splitting hair in the can of worms, all of it started from a fabulous (non-abstract!!!) image of Ben!
You call it tomato I call it ....
A very enjoyable conversation.
 03/19/2011 08:45:17 PM · #22
.

Message edited by author 2011-03-20 08:54:32.
 03/19/2011 10:26:07 PM · #23
It has taken me six hours to understand what Don was saying about abstraction and representation. Now what can I do with my leftover essence?
 03/19/2011 11:10:12 PM · #24
Originally posted by bspurgeon:


So I posted this image earlier and received some interesting comments, but there seems to be an ongoing conflict in the definition of abstract......the image is the beach broken down in to elements of texture, movement, and light.


Does that matter?
 03/19/2011 11:10:20 PM · #25
I think he simply mistyped. He meant to say
"True abstraction is boring, because it represents nothing. But what's wonderful about abstraction is that it almost always fails, and tends to represent something..."

BTW, didn't we argue about the definition of abstract not so long ago in relation to proposed Edward Weston BW Abstract challenge? seems like deja vu all over again :)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 02:36:04 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 02:36:04 PM EDT.