| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/19/2011 11:11:38 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by mariuca:
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. |
Duchamp is in a class by himself. I don't know if it can be chronologically said that he "led" to Dadaism but he certainly fueled it and led the way to Surrealism... but that doesn't mean he didn't prefigure abstract expressionism as well. Nude Descending a Staircase was certainly part of Cubism, and Cubism is an excellent example of "abstracting" reality. In other words, a Cubist was not interested in revealing the "essence" of objects, but rather to find some sort of "essence" behind or beyond objects... they began the journey the abstract expressionists would take on... concerned not with what we see but rather how we see...
As to Ben, I think I've miscommunicated. I'm not trying to discredit abstract images by finding my own representations within them... I'm saying that's precisely what makes abstraction so interesting. Pure abstraction is easy: set shutter speed to 1 second and whirl your camera around in a circle. But pure abstraction is boring. For me, failure is interesting... the edge is interesting. |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 11:12:51 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by LevT:
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..."
|
ARGH!!! Lev figured it out. So sorry, folks. I did indeed mistype. |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 11:35:50 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by LevT:
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..."
|
ARGH!!! Lev figured it out. So sorry, folks. I did indeed mistype. |
Darn! I preferred the first statement! Lev, don't be so nit-picking! |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 11:44:00 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by LevT:
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..." |
To whom it represents nothing? There is a painting in the National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne that is just a shade of orange. It must have represented something to someone.
PS I assume everyone agreed that in Abstract anything goes because it might mean something to someone. But that leaves Ben's original question and photograph nowhere. Was that the intention?
Message edited by author 2011-03-19 23:46:26. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 12:26:09 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by marnet:
Originally posted by LevT:
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..." |
To whom it represents nothing? There is a painting in the National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne that is just a shade of orange. It must have represented something to someone. |
Yes, some painters have gone a long way toward true abstraction, and thus I find them boring (I don't know the piece in question).
(sorry this is marnet)
Originally posted by "mariuca":
PS I assume everyone agreed that in Abstract anything goes because it might mean something to someone. But that leaves Ben's original question and photograph nowhere. Was that the intention? |
I don't think Ben asked a question. As to his original photograph, I don't find it abstract because it participates in the idea of "shore" and all the rich themes that go along with that idea. But my definition of abstraction as non-representation is not the only definition, as others have shown. And certainly Ben's photo is farther along the abstract spectrum than most photographs.
Message edited by author 2011-03-20 17:47:46. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 12:46:03 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by marnet:
[quote=LevT] 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..." |
To whom it represents nothing? There is a painting in the National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne that is just a shade of orange. It must have represented something to someone. |
Yes, some painters have gone a long way toward true abstraction, and thus I find them boring (I don't know the piece in question).
Originally posted by "mariuca":
PS I assume everyone agreed that in Abstract anything goes because it might mean something to someone. But that leaves Ben's original question and photograph nowhere. Was that the intention?
I don't think Ben asked a question. As to his original photograph, I don't find it abstract because it participates in the idea of "shore" and all the rich themes that go along with that idea. But my definition of abstraction as non-representation is not the only definition, as others have shown. And certainly Ben's photo is farther along the abstract spectrum than most photographs. |
The sentence that I crossed was not written by me. (misquote)
I am afraid I started opening this rather pleasant can of worms by saying regarding  jmritz comment:
I agree full-hearted with "wonderful"(epithet quoted from jmritz) but this (picture) 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.
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.
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.
QED. I think that Ben's picture is a non-abstract jewel!
|
|
|
|
03/20/2011 01:14:20 AM · #32 |
Of all the definitions of 'abstract' cited I most prefer that of bear_music in which he speaks of abstraction as a reduction.
I think of abstraction as a distillation process in which normally unperceived qualities of the nominal subject are revealed, emphasised or even postulated, while the representational is suppressed or ignored altogether. Thus it doesn't matter to my definition whether or not I might recognise the nominal subject; that has ceased to be the point of the work. It simply doesn't matter.
I think that technically I am wrong, but I don't care at all. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 01:21:43 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I don't find it abstract because it participates in the idea of "shore" and all the rich themes that go along with that idea. But my definition of abstraction as non-representation is not the only definition, as others have shown. And certainly Ben's photo is farther along the abstract spectrum than most photographs. |
Definitely true; and, referencing the bold, is the primary inspiration of many of those images. Consider this, take a step back from the image and ask what does it not represent, rather than what does it represent. This is a practice I use when selecting my favorites to further process. If I can answer in a personally meaningful way what it does not represent, then I have an image I want to work with. It's an exercise in discovery, and thus no longer represents the original scene.
So with my original image...my initial intent is to find form in the sand that is contrasting with the water, either through light, movement, texture, or any combination. I then try to see/find a less obvious relationship once I've found the scene on a larger scale. Anyway, my long winded point, from the time of capture to processing the idea of representation has changed, and it no longer represents the shore to me. Make sense? This is not available to the viewer, obviously, so the most difficult part is to keep a connection with the viewer. This is something that I've learned from Paul, Z, Clive, and yourself, among others...keep the image open and the viewer, if so inclined, will remain engaged and draw their own conclusions.
I suspect that we can all agree that abstraction is a spectrum, where, and how, an image falls on that spectrum can not be well defined. Consider the spectrum of landscapes, much easier to classify and define. I like seascapes, beautiful and inspiring , but I get more satisfaction out of the detailed scenes i make in between, or instead of, the grand seascape.
I'm rambling...
eta: grammar
Message edited by author 2011-03-20 01:23:11. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 01:27:28 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by mariuca:
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. |
Isn't that a beautiful definition? Don left a comment once, "an image that is itself an object". |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 01:37:53 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by mariuca:
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. |
Isn't that a beautiful definition? Don left a comment once, "an image that is itself an object". |
Yes, it is a beautiful definition. I like that one a lot. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 09:03:26 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I don't find it abstract because it participates in the idea of "shore" and all the rich themes that go along with that idea. But my definition of abstraction as non-representation is not the only definition, as others have shown. And certainly Ben's photo is farther along the abstract spectrum than most photographs. |
Definitely true; and, referencing the bold, is the primary inspiration of many of those images. Consider this, take a step back from the image and ask what does it not represent, rather than what does it represent. This is a practice I use when selecting my favorites to further process. If I can answer in a personally meaningful way what it does not represent, then I have an image I want to work with. It's an exercise in discovery, and thus no longer represents the original scene.
So with my original image...my initial intent is to find form in the sand that is contrasting with the water, either through light, movement, texture, or any combination. I then try to see/find a less obvious relationship once I've found the scene on a larger scale. Anyway, my long winded point, from the time of capture to processing the idea of representation has changed, and it no longer represents the shore to me. Make sense? This is not available to the viewer, obviously, so the most difficult part is to keep a connection with the viewer. This is something that I've learned from Paul, Z, Clive, and yourself, among others...keep the image open and the viewer, if so inclined, will remain engaged and draw their own conclusions.
I suspect that we can all agree that abstraction is a spectrum, where, and how, an image falls on that spectrum can not be well defined. Consider the spectrum of landscapes, much easier to classify and define. I like seascapes, beautiful and inspiring , but I get more satisfaction out of the detailed scenes i make in between, or instead of, the grand seascape.
I'm rambling...
eta: grammar |
I appreciate this. So nice to hear your work process. When I first looked at your photograph I knew it was a seascape, a lot of your pictures are of the sea, but that was just a fleeting thought. I saw the image as three layers, a darker lower one leading to a misty lighter one that moved off to the upper left and last the topmost layer of texture and subtle form leading off into the distance. I don't think I need to be aware of the seascape aspects of the image to appreciate the beauty of what Ben accomplished. I suppose this is why I used the word 'abstract'.
You all got me thinking this morning, me being more a painter than photographer, that when I paint an image, no matter how realistic, it is like Don says, "an image that is itself an object". With paint this is taken for granted but photography is a different animal altogether. I think photography as a medium is tied in with reality to a greater extent.
I'll slow down on my use of the word 'Abstract'.
The discussion has been enlightening to me.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2011 09:37:19 AM · #37 |
Now that I am an adult(?), I can ramble like this and play the art critic and use big words and nod wisely!
But my favorite teacher at the Art Academy used to tell us that when artists talk the world becomes smaller and loses something. And continued: "do take your pencils and brushes and start over in silence". (Little did he know, unless he searched in his own memories of schooling, how we spent the nights talking!)
Since I joined DPC to be as close to a photo school as I can for a little period of time and respond diligently to the required themes, rain or shine, I better take my camera and go in the world.
But surely enough, I still keep an eye in here! I am an adult now!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
03/20/2011 09:44:48 AM · #38 |
| ...and, oh yes, it's the first time here that I use my photos in themselves, other than being a tool for my art work or just sheer passion for any sign of visual meaning and interest or notation of a thought. Yes, photography is a different animal. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 11:49:31 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
so the most difficult part is to keep a connection with the viewer. |
I think I found my entry point into this conversation. When I photograph something I consider to be abstract or non-representational, I'm rarely thinking about the viewer. The only viewer that matters is me. To that end, this kind of photography is a very personal, perhaps even selfish, endeavor for me. In fact, sometimes I think I have a secondary intention of alienating or just bemusing the viewer. The casual viewer anyway. This sounds perverse, but if I can do that and stay true to myself, then I feel like I'm doing something original -- or at least nonderivative (because I hate the word original in the context of photography).
Having rambled on about all of this, I don't mean to say that I don't like sharing and hearing people's reactions. And it's nice when someone finds a connection with an otherwise inaccessible image of mine. But I think it's most satisfying for both parties when the viewer finds it on their own terms and not because I handed it to them. (Of course, maybe that's what you mean, Ben -- leaving some "in" for the viewer, even if it's a very narrow one.) |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 12:56:12 PM · #40 |
it seems like there are two basic schools of thought arguing here - one is based on the philosophical definition of "abstract" (in a sense of reduction, as argued by Bear_Music, ubique, bspurgeon) and the other one which is more in line with the accepted artistic definition as a non-representational art ( mariuca and posthumous). I am more in the second camp, since we are talking about art here, not about philosophy. This was my point of contention about categorizing Edward Weston's peppers as abstract art in one of the earlier threads. I certainly agree that his images go far beyond simply depicting peppers (as any good art should) but it does not make them abstract in my book. However, I was chided by Louis that saying this amounted to pandering... still not sure why. :) Of course, an image can be more or less abstract, there is no litmus test. Furthermore, what is abstract for one viewer, maybe concrete for another.
Finally, if we accepted that objects reduced to their essentials were abstract art, then I would argue that porno is the ultimate abstract art :)
Message edited by author 2011-03-20 12:56:44. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 01:13:04 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by LevT:
i
Finally, if we accepted that objects reduced to their essentials were abstract art, then I would argue that porno is the ultimate abstract art :) |
Hmm. a perverse reduction to essential. Ha!
@ Brian, whether you know it or not, you often leave an entry point in to your images, which is why I enjoy many of your images. For the record, I'm not blowing smoke here...although it appears Lev may work it in to the discussion! ;)
An example from bvy worth discussing. Scored remarkably high considering the image, which to me means you connected to the masses on level they likely did not realize. A 4.8 for this is very good. Agreed?
 My comment during the challenge "Fantastic mess of an image, expertly arranged to highlight your littered lamp." An abstraction of decay
Message edited by author 2011-03-20 13:13:39. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 01:32:34 PM · #42 |
I suspect we wrongly assume that "representational" is a simple matter. It is easy to assume that a photograph represents the subject if it conforms to the way the subject has been previously represented and/or if the subject is recognizable; interestingly, a good likeness, a good portrait, a good landscape must also be pleasing. Lots of wiggle room. Maybe: cave paintings are thought to be some form of positive thinking: depict it and it will happen. Are they representational or are they abstract? Maybe they are only magic. As well, the term "abstraction" is potentially unwieldy insofar as it implies a "reality" from which. (Sort of [user]LevT's[/user] point). mariuca is on the money about art talk. And yet...
I am with bvy in shooting for myself: the viewer - and there is an abstraction - does not exist except on a bad day.
I love it when I look at an image and enjoy it as a thing in itself. ( posthumous). |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 03:16:26 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by LevT:
However, I was chided by Louis that saying this amounted to pandering... still not sure why. :) |
Oh, I wasn't accusing you of pandering, I think I was just suggesting that defining "abstraction" to be as DPC-friendly as possible was a form of pandering to the lowest common denominator here, and I didn't think we needed to do that.
I was going to bring up that discussion myself, because it has some of the ideas presented here. Plus it has a great Weston quote provided by pointandshoot: "This then: to photograph a rock, have it look like a rock, but be more than a rock." I think this applies to Weston's abstracts (in the abstraction-as-a-part-of-a-whole sense).
I also thoroughly appreciated bvy's interpretation of his own abstracts as work for one's self. I completely appreciate that, and feel as well an impulse to alienate the (casual) viewer. It seems I prefer the grotesque, and imagery of lonesomeness, and I consider my best "abstract" stuff to be at the same time representational. My preference is for a single idea to be abstracted from the imagery. This is most often possible with a recognizable abstract.
Message edited by author 2011-03-20 15:18:13. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 04:03:07 PM · #44 |
Don't now much about Abstraction specifically in Photography but here a great show of Abstract Expressionism (considering the subject ... ha, ha!) I'll follow sometimes with pics (my view).
//www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/1098
One of my favorite art critics is Peter Schjeldahl (New Yorker - and a recent collection of his pieces were published in "Let's See". He said "I was weaned as a critic on abstract art..."
//www.blackbird.vcu.edu/v3n1/gallery/schjeldahl_p/interview_text.htm |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 05:49:32 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by tnun:
I am with bvy in shooting for myself: the viewer - and there is an abstraction - does not exist except on a bad day. |
I accept this, and I believe most folks who enjoy abstract photography start with this in mind. However, if you show, or present, your image in any fashion then you know, eventually, that there is a viewer other than yourself. This must affect your image creation on some level. Paraphrasing Brian, he mentioned a secondary intention of bemusing or alienating the viewer. An image that is created purely for the creating artist irrespective of a secondary viewer must remain with the artist. Any other process involves interpretation and, ultimately, judgement/appreciation/rejection by others. I personally don't care if the masses reject an image, but I do prefer that it reaches one person other than myself. In this manner I have shared a piece of myself.
Originally posted by tnun:
I love it when I look at an image and enjoy it as a thing in itself. ( posthumous). |
Absolutely. Actually would make a fun challenge...what to call it...the Weston challenge is never going to happen.
Message edited by author 2011-03-20 17:49:52. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 05:55:34 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by marnet:
... There is a painting in the National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne that is just a shade of orange. It must have represented something to someone.? |
We have something akin to that in Ottawa that caused quite a furor a few years back. Voice of fire was and continues to be an issue of contravesy.
I was thinking that I could paint a canvas completly white and call it "Windstorm in the Prairies" are watch the millions roll in. :O)
Ray
Message edited by author 2011-03-20 17:57:33. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 06:05:16 PM · #47 |
"abstract" is just one of those words that buzzes with definitions and needs to be defined and redefined in order to talk about it. My definition is not the best one. In fact, I think some of the others are more interesting. Mine just helps me put things in a context of art history, which helps me to think about it.
Also, it's only fair of me to point out that the idea of the image as an object in itself is an idea I stole from  zeuszen.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2011 06:15:46 PM · #48 |
| In fact, it's a bit ironic to try and pigeonhole abstract; this thread proves that it can not be done. |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 07:00:21 PM · #49 |
|
|
|
03/20/2011 07:42:35 PM · #50 |
Went skiing all day, came back to find this! Minutes to read and few hours to understand. Very lively discussion! :)
PS Just glanced through and noticed that the main conclusion reached is that abstract is too abstract to be defined! I like that! ;) |
|
