Perhaps abstract is also the natural realm of photography-based digital art.
For myself (and I believe, many artists), being an artist is not a competition to be first in creating something, nor to be better than everyone else.
... or Starbucks... where nobody knows your name except for the cup).If someone is so craving interaction they need to start arguments I suggest they go down to the local old folks home and spend some time with people who really do need someone to talk to.
With an abstract, it is not that the image does not have a referent, it is that the viewer brings the referent to the image. See, equivalent.
OP alleged that he'd "like to precipitate change in the way certain terms (e.g. "abstract" e.g. "art") are used". I keep waiting for him to elaborate.
... You put it out there and the viewer tells you what they see.
probably a good place for it seeing this thread is kind of insulting and unkind. harsh threads like this do not makeOr given the hyperbole of the OP maybe to the Soapbox
OP alleged that he'd "like to precipitate change in the way certain terms (e.g. "abstract" e.g. "art") are used". I keep waiting for him to elaborate.
Like ink blotch testing...
no one says you have to look and interpret photographs you don't want to look at and interpretYes, although ink blotch testing is useful only if both parties are willing.
OP alleged that he'd "like to precipitate change in the way certain terms (e.g. "abstract" e.g. "art") are used". I keep waiting for him to elaborate.
I don't have an agenda "to precipitate change in the way certain terms (e.g. "abstract" e.g. "art") are used", so the ball is in your court.I'm happy to notice small shifts in your own thinking, as well as mine.
I don't have an agenda "to precipitate change in the way certain terms (e.g. "abstract" e.g. "art") are used", so the ball is in your court.
It is not about win/lose; it is about you setting forth the changes to "abstract" and "art" you propose, which allegedly is why you started this thread. I gave you the benefit of the doubt with respect to your intention, and I am beginning to question the wisdom of that.This doesn't have to be a win/lose game...it isn't that for me or for most of the participants (it doesn't even seem that way for you).
You know you can combine photography with paint? This is from a series of photographs inspired by the abstract expressionists:Abstract? Try water colors, oils or acrylic. At any rate, William de Kooning and hundreds of others have done it already, and better.
I have no problem with "accidental results". A lot of what I've been doing has been because of mistakes and accidents. I just try to make sure I'm not dismissive of the errors, and often use them as a springboard to something else which isn't accidental. Not exactly sure what you mean by "limited intentions", though."Abstract" has come to mean "accidental results, limited intentions" too commonly.
What do you think?
I don't have an agenda "to precipitate change in the way certain terms (e.g. "abstract" e.g. "art") are used", so the ball is in your court.
Honored.One of my favorite photographs ever posted in the Gallery is one of Vaughn's (hope you don't mind my mention of it). It's Branches, Trinidad State Park. I consider it an abstract although it is recognizable as branches against the sky. The way it was framed gives it the movement of a Jackson Pollock painting, and that's what initially had me connect with the piece.
nice try eddieYou know you can combine photography with paint? This is from a series of photographs inspired by the abstract expressionists:
Don't hold your breath. It would be nice if he provided an example of what he is objecting to. It should be easy as he feels such examples are so prevalent. Indeed, with an agenda to change the way terms abstract and art are used, I would think such examples should come pouring forth.
THAT was never intended to be an abstract - by virtue of close to two centuries of degradation, it can be interpreted as one (in case some readers are not aware, the image in question is widely considered the "first" photograph, made by Joseph Nicephore Niepce in 1829 at his house in Le Gras, outside Chalon-sur-Saone, France).
... the image in question is widely considered the "first" photograph, made by Joseph Nicephore Niepce in 1829 at his house in Le Gras, outside Chalon-sur-Saone, France).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?