Yes! And my interest in posting Niepce's seminal photograph has more to do with interpretation by the observer than it does with the photographer's intent. Once an art piece becomes available for others to view the interpretation of it rests with the viewer and no longer with the creator. This is regardless of intent by the artist. Artist's intent in creation is important, but a transition of power happens when a piece becomes public. Of course understanding the artist's intent (if known) might make a piece more interesting.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).
LOLAs you've noticed, I've not said anything negative on this Forum about individual photographers.
I agree Niepce's photograph was never designed to be an abstract. Yet, it can easily be interpreted as that now.
"Abstract" has come to mean "accidental results, limited intentions" too commonly.
What do you think?
...I hope you keep text like that ...
"Abstract" has come to mean "accidental results, limited intentions" too commonly.
What do you think?
I haven't been, but I just started a word file called "Pearls", after the comic strip. However, if the house were to go up in flames (too much of that going on around here), the computer would be one of the last things I'll grab...or the first, hard to say. Two days ago we had a string of fires start right outside town and up the highway to the east into the mountains. Seems like a vehicle might have been dragging a chain and causing sparks. We were fortunate that there was no wind and all was contained within 12 hours. Rain in the forecast.
But in the end, I can not get too excited about the application of lables. My second images of branches still has a referent, mysterious as it is. The branches radiate from the lower center of the image, rather than randomly repeatitive like the other. It was taken in 110F temps, much too hot for rattlesnakes. I was out in the open, near a strange colored lake, and surrounded on three sides by 400' walls of volcanic rock. The heat rose up around me and burst through the end of the branches.
The volcanic wall behind the branches stretches over 3 miles and I was in one of four alcoves. About 13,000 years ago the amount of water flooding over these walls equaled the total flow of all the earth's rivers right now....and these falls would have been a meer ripple. And these floods happened many times over a couple thousand years, putting the area of Portland under 400 feet of water each time. How can that not affect ones images? Again, what the viewer finds in the image is up to them, but hopefully I have given viewers a visual push to appreciate the crazy energy in the image.
You put it out there and the viewer tells you what they see.
its weakness ( what you have stated ) is its greatest strengthThis is the problem (the “see” part). I agree with @jim10219 in that abstract art — be it painting, photography, music — is not about the viewer trying to make sense of the “subject”, as there’s none! It’s all about the artist conveying or stimulating feelings on the viewer.
its weakness ( what you have stated ) is its greatest strength
there IS a subject ...
there is some sort of rule or rules that suggest the person who made the image/s
can't even title the image or say anything about the image &c
And I don’t agree that there is a subject. By “abstract”, I understand that there’s no discernible elements in the image. If there is something discernible, it’s not abstract.
I don’t believe it’s a weakness. It’s a “constraint”. I don’t see a problem working with a certain set of rules, be it when I am taking photographs or skating.
And I don’t agree that there is a subject. By “abstract”, I understand that there’s no discernible elements in the image. If there is something discernible, it’s not abstract.
Vaughn quoted from the Tate Museum definition of abstract in post 36: "The term can be applied to art that is based an object, figure or landscape, where forms have been simplified or schematised." So, if you accept a broader definition, an abstract need not be non-representational.It ain't necessarily so ... There are many photographs of sand dunes that are abstracts and yet are discernible as sand dunes.
a series of abstractions made by pouring melted hot wax on a series of glass plates
There are many photographs of sand dunes that are abstracts and yet are discernible as sand dunes.
So, if you accept a broader definition, an abstract need not be non-representational.
I quoted only a portion of Tate's definition. Some more of it;Vaughn quoted from the Tate Museum definition of abstract in post 36: "The term can be applied to art that is based an object, figure or landscape, where forms have been simplified or schematised." So, if you accept a broader definition, an abstract need not be non-representational.
Oxford dictionary:
Relating to or denoting art that does not attempt to represent external reality, but rather seeks to achieve its effect using shapes, colours, and textures.
‘abstract pictures’
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?