Alleged abstract photos are tiresome......wrong medium, too easy.

[removed account4]

Alleged abstract photos are tiresome......wrong medium, too easy.

its too bad people on this website make it a point to divide the membership instead of finding commonality

 

[jtk]

Thanks for sharing this excellent thought. I wonder if -- on some level -- many photos with a strong emotional response somehow contain this line, really or metaphorically.

Yes. Images that "contain" BOTH literal representation and "metaphor" ... and questions, indecision...seem to me to be the essence of juicy photographs: like the discoveries that Zen Buddhists and other meditative folks realize when they bring discipline to awareness/perception.

Much like vintage "modern jazz" , which states a tune then explores something else from that point of reference, then returns occasionally to remind us of what's underway.

 

[jtk]

No it isn't.

Vaughn...do you LABEL your prints "abstract" ?

 

[NedL]

Yes. Images that "contain" BOTH literal representation and "metaphor" ... and questions, indecision...seem to me to be the essence of juicy photographs: like the discoveries that Zen Buddhists and other meditative folks realize when they bring discipline to awareness/perception.

Much like vintage "modern jazz" , which states a tune then explores something else from that point of reference, then returns occasionally to remind us of what's underway.

Room for the viewer's imagination to supply some part and participate... many paintings have something outside the picture implied or hinted at but not shown...

 

[Vaughn]

Vaughn...do you LABEL your prints "abstract" ?

No, I tend to limit titles/descriptions to place and date and media (Carbon Print, Platinum Print, etc) and do not include whatever 'school' or branch or type of art I am using (such as 'abstract"). Usually if one of my images has a more involved title, the title and the image evolved together -- see below: "Mistaking the Map for the Territory". In this case, I feel the title and the photograph are one piece. Silver Gelatin Print from 4x5 negative.

However, if you meant do I CALL any of my images I have shown in these posts abstracts, then yes and no. If I was discussing one of them, the discussion could easily come around to the influence of abstract art. For example, with the image of the branches at Dry Falls I hope the viewer coming to it with a fresh mind will be able to make the jump from photo-reality...past the branches...to feeling the heat and intensity of the moment...or to whatever echoes from within the viewer. I like the way the image suggests a mirror image, how the tonalities of the ground (sunlit dry grass) and the "sky" (black lava cliff face in shadow) are reversed, and by cropping in close, how the branches extend forever; helping the viewer to make the jump. So while I do not label it abstract, I would have to say that on one level I want the viewer to treat it as one.

Some interesting reading on equivilence and abstract photography by Minor White:
http://www.jnevins.com/whitereading.htm

 

[Eric Rose]

I wish they would ban the use of Bold on Photrio.

 

[Billy Axeman]

its too bad people on this website make it a point to divide the membership instead of finding commonality

+1
Folks consistently with such a habit should be ignored, but unfortunately there are still too many people feeding threads designed to satisfy ego's like this.

 

[Eric Rose]

+1
Folks consistently with such a habit should be ignored, but unfortunately there are still too many people feeding threads designed to satisfy ego's like this.

Amen brother! It's a disease that's infected much of our society these days.

 

[jtk]

No, I tend to limit titles/descriptions to place and date and media (Carbon Print, Platinum Print, etc) and do not include whatever 'school' or branch or type of art I am using (such as 'abstract"). Usually if one of my images has a more involved title, the title and the image evolved together -- see below: "Mistaking the Map for the Territory". In this case, I feel the title and the photograph are one piece. Silver Gelatin Print from 4x5 negative.

However, if you meant do I CALL any of my images I have shown in these posts abstracts, then yes and no. If I was discussing one of them, the discussion could easily come around to the influence of abstract art. For example, with the image of the branches at Dry Falls I hope the viewer coming to it with a fresh mind will be able to make the jump from photo-reality...past the branches...to feeling the heat and intensity of the moment...or to whatever echoes from within the viewer. I like the way the image suggests a mirror image, how the tonalities of the ground (sunlit dry grass) and the "sky" (black lava cliff face in shadow) are reversed, and by cropping in close, how the branches extend forever; helping the viewer to make the jump. So while I do not label it abstract, I would have to say that on one level I want the viewer to treat it as one.

Some interesting reading on equivilence and abstract photography by Minor White:
http://www.jnevins.com/whitereading.htm

 

[jtk]

....

Vaughn, thanks for your thoughtful. extended response. I'm not surprised. I am, of course, in general agreement.

Your link http://www.jnevins.com/whitereading.htm is (for me) worthwhile rereading. Minor influenced me via osmosis from some of his direct RIT students, tho my photography generally lacks that coherence (and I resonate more through Weston's Daybook II) ...Minor's values have at least lurked in my photography since 1970, and may relate to my attitude about "abstract" and similar titles.

 

[Vaughn]

Some posters have a rougher posting style than others. I know that I tend to react too strongly to presentation style rather than concentrate on content. How one reacts to posts is solely on the shoulders of the reader...the messenger cannot be blamed, no matter how the message is presented.

Jtk's tone of voice obviously sets some of us off -- but it has also driven a very good discussion of Abstract photography -- I am appreciating exploring it, and may have explored it deeper due to jtk's style...it challenged me. Thank you.

 

[fdonadio]

I shot this in 2015. Abstract or not?

If I told you this is the ceiling of a mausoleum in Montevideo, Uruguay, would it still be abstract?

My intent was isolating the ceiling and making something else of it, so the viewer would feel something like I felt when I saw it — I was kinda mesmerized. I intended it to be abstract. But when I showed this to almost anyone, the first question was “where did you take this?”

So, I guess the problem isn’t about abstract photography being a way to “salvage” accidental photos. Nor is it a failure if people ask about what it is — since it’s a photography, people know there’s “something” in there.

IMO, people don’t want to think too much about a photo — they just look at it and decide to like it or not. Sometimes people want to know more, like “who’s this”, “where was this shot” and stuff like that. I feel photography doesn’t get the respect it deserves as an art form. People recognize some “cleverness” in some photos and a lot of “instagrammers” know how to make their photos look “clever”. People usually don’t stop and try to feel something from a photo as some do with a painting or sculpture.

One important thing: this photo is the original from the camera, a Nikon P100. It’s digital and hasn’t been altered, except for a resize and a subtle unsharp mask (I do it for every image I resize in Photoshop).

 

[wyofilm]

I shot this in 2015. Abstract or not?

For me the way Georgia O'Keeffe discusses abstraction is highly relevant to photography. For her she abstracted elements from the object she was painting. Her abstractions ran the gamut of appearing somewhat realistic to not realistic at all. She also related how she was influenced by photographers and how they cropped images - a clear for of abstraction.

Critics of her time accused her of painting nothing more than wall decorations. Hmmm... I don't hold with that interpretation at all.

 

[jtk]

For me the way Georgia O'Keeffe discusses abstraction is highly relevant to photography. For her she abstracted elements from the object she was painting. Her abstractions ran the gamut of appearing somewhat realistic to not realistic at all. She also related how she was influenced by photographers and how they cropped images - a clear for of abstraction.

Critics of her time accused her of painting nothing more than wall decorations. Hmmm... I don't hold with that interpretation at all.

For decades, Georgia O'Keefe actively posed for many photographers, most of whom saw her as Alfred Stieglitz's mistress and wife. She obviously understood photography and fame.

Where have you read negative comments by "critics of her time" ? And where did she "discuss" abstraction ? Just curious.

For years O'Keefe refused to let San Francisco's old Museum of Modern Art (Marine's Memorial Museum) hang a show of her work because the walls were badly painted. Finally, in the 70s, she agreed and sent Ten Thousand Dollars with the demand that the museum paint the walls before hanging her work. Reported in San Francisco Chronicle before the opening. Saw that show. The museum's director subsequently became head of Photographic Department at University of Arizona and taught photography. Maybe somebody will remember his name?

www.whitney.org/uploads/image/file/820451/large_o_keeffe_early-abstraction.jpg

 

[removed account4]

For me the way Georgia O'Keeffe discusses abstraction is highly relevant to photography. For her she abstracted elements from the object she was painting. Her abstractions ran the gamut of appearing somewhat realistic to not realistic at all. She also related how she was influenced by photographers and how they cropped images - a clear for of abstraction.

Critics of her time accused her of painting nothing more than wall decorations. Hmmm... I don't hold with that interpretation at all.

critics always gotta be critical
these days everyone's a critic
just read a story recently about
self proclaimed critcs on YELP!
who get the satisfaction of being
hyper critical, but don't like the blowback
they get when the person they were
critical of decided they didn't like
the critique -- some arrived at homes cranky
at 12midnight, others harassed via facebook
others threatened to crash the wedding
still others just said crazy stuff claiming
most of the critical reviews were
done via a "troll farm" // some unfortunates
hire a well known character actor to read the critique
so they play it on an endless loop in the loo.

good to hear they were considered
decorative pieces ... the mona lisa decorated
the walls of a french king's toilet room ... a navajo blanket worth
500,000$ decorated someone's couch and a woven fabric
thing that looked like a small rug decorated someone's
dowery ( livestock -> camel ) in kazakhstan and is
now valued at $400,000 .. not sure why "decorative"
is considered an insult. art's art and if it was so bad
why did the critics bother to critique it other than to "vent"
.. same old same old .. its too easy a 3 year old could paint/draw/make/photograph it
but the critics are good at critiquing and not producing master works
and the critics never like it when they are critiqued .. i guess that
is why they have an anonymous handle on the YELP!
"SHE! did not order the hummos wrapped fire chicken combo that was
reviewed not sure why the review says "bland" HE! only ordered a tap water
and made a huge mess in the rest room and stole all the paper products "
yes >> anonymous ..

 

[NedL]

... reviews were
done via a "troll farm" ..

LOL

 

[jeffreyg]

I haven't read all the posts so if this is repeating -sorry. Henry Holmes Smith made images with photographic materials not using a camera. Are those considered photographs as they are certainly abstract? We have one hanging on a wall along side very literal photographs by other well known photographers.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[removed account4]

I haven't read all the posts so if this is repeating -sorry. Henry Holmes Smith made images with photographic materials not using a camera. Are those considered photographs as they are certainly abstract? We have one hanging on a wall along side very literal photographs by other well known photographers.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

Thank you for mentioning him, I had never heard of him before now, and now i have ..
I am no authority on anything but if it was up to me I would consider it abstract imagery as well as photography,
but I as you know know there are people who might not consider the work to be neither photography ( because there no camera )
nor abstract ( because it is not a photography using a camera of something ). Wiki says it is both, Museums consider them both
and Historians consider them both... I'd go by the "experts" as long as they aren't bots or trolls, cause you never know these days ...

 

[eddie]

I hadn't heard of Smith either. Thanks for the introduction.

 

[jtk]

For me the way Georgia O'Keeffe discusses abstraction is highly relevant to photography. For her she abstracted elements from the object she was painting. Her abstractions ran the gamut of appearing somewhat realistic to not realistic at all. She also related how she was influenced by photographers and how they cropped images - a clear for of abstraction.

Critics of her time accused her of painting nothing more than wall decorations. Hmmm... I don't hold with that interpretation at all.

It'd be weird to buy into negative criticism of work from a century ago if we couldn't even see the criticism. Hallucination?

Some right here on Photrio are negative about Picasso. So what? How does that relate to allegedly "abstract" photographs?

 

[removed account4]

Some right here on Photrio are negative about Picasso.

please share links to these negative comments about picasso.

How does that relate to allegedly "abstract" photographs?

how does it NOT relate to someone ignoring conventions &c
its just like the way people are dismissive of tichy and nadar and plenty of others ...

 

[faberryman]

please share links to these negative comments about picasso.
how does it NOT relate to someone ignoring conventions &c
its just like the way people are dismissive of tichy and nadar and plenty of others ...

I think I remember some member saying he didn't like Picasso. Maybe even in this thread. Not sure why that matters, or even what the point is.

 

[removed account4]

I think I remember some member saying he didn't like Picasso. Maybe even in this thread. Not sure why that matters, or even what the point is.

i figured if he was dropping the name maybe there was a point? unless that was the point ..

 

[jtk]

I think I remember some member saying he didn't like Picasso. Maybe even in this thread. Not sure why that matters, or even what the point is.

Yes.

The point might be that ignorance is, for some people, bliss...it explains "likes" for every mediocre snapshot.

 

[faberryman]

The point might be that ignorance is, for some people, bliss...it explains "likes" for every mediocre snapshot.

I think that is just storing up goodwill for when they post.