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

[jtk]

According to whom? You're entitled to your opinion, of course.

The attached image (mine) is certainly "abstract"; does it show "limited intentions"? Absolutely. Is it a product of "accidental results"? Kind-of; If I hadn't been walking past this scene at the time of day I wouldn't have noticed the reflections and the play of light from the roof. I'd also have preferred to avoid imaging the door frame. I think it communicates something; your mileage may vary.

I don't think it's "abstract." Certanly not "certainly abstract." You claim it is. In what way does your label contribute?

 

[Vaughn]

.

Labeling one's photo "abstract" demonstrate fear that one's viewer won't appreciate one's photo. Seems condescending.

No it isn't.

 

[removed account4]

No it isn't.

+1 !

 

[Bill Burk]

.

Labeling one's photo "abstract" demonstrate fear that one's viewer won't appreciate one's photo. Seems condescending.

I think I would choose “Untitled” before I would include the word “Abstract” in the title of a photo that I consider abstract.

But I like to think that a photo can be abstract even if it is eventually recognizable for what it is (like Caponigro’s apple). It took me a while when I first saw it, at first I really thought it was a space image.

I might go out to the creek in my backyard and take photos looking down on the floating leaves and bubbles. That kind of thing would be abstract to me. I might include some grasses on the bank, and still think it’s abstract. But soon as I include enough to where you can start to make out the scene... there will be a definite point where I have crossed the line and turned it into a nature photo.

This actually sounds like a fun project, to try a series right at the line between nature and abstract.

 

[removedacct1]

.

Labeling one's photo "abstract" demonstrate fear that one's viewer won't appreciate one's photo. Seems condescending.

And I thought your opening statement was judgemental and opinionated.

 

[jtk]

I think I would choose “Untitled” before I would include the word “Abstract” in the title of a photo that I consider abstract.

But I like to think that a photo can be abstract even if it is eventually recognizable for what it is (like Caponigro’s apple). It took me a while when I first saw it, at first I really thought it was a space image.

I might go out to the creek in my backyard and take photos looking down on the floating leaves and bubbles. That kind of thing would be abstract to me. I might include some grasses on the bank, and still think it’s abstract. But soon as I include enough to where you can start to make out the scene... there will be a definite point where I have crossed the line and turned it into a nature photo.

This actually sounds like a fun project, to try a series right at the line between nature and abstract.

Why is the "abstract" label important to you ?

 

[jtk]

And I thought your opening statement was judgemental and opinionated.

That OK.

Do you have thoughts of your own on the "abstract" topic?

I visited your very pretty Media images fyi.

 

[jtk]

I think I would choose “Untitled” before I would include the word “Abstract” in the title of a photo that I consider abstract.

But I like to think that a photo can be abstract even if it is eventually recognizable for what it is (like Caponigro’s apple). It took me a while when I first saw it, at first I really thought it was a space image.

I might go out to the creek in my backyard and take photos looking down on the floating leaves and bubbles. That kind of thing would be abstract to me. I might include some grasses on the bank, and still think it’s abstract. But soon as I include enough to where you can start to make out the scene... there will be a definite point where I have crossed the line and turned it into a nature photo.

This actually sounds like a fun project, to try a series right at the line between nature and abstract.

Why is the "abstract" label meaningful to you?

 

[Vaughn]

In my personal definition of abstract photographic work, for the viewer to reconize what was photographed has no affect on whether it is an abstract image or not. The intent and label comes from the artist.

 

[faberryman]

Labeling one's photo "abstract" demonstrate fear that one's viewer won't appreciate one's photo. Seems condescending.

Flaffing about with definitions isn't going to get us anywhere.

 

[Vaughn]

And I have a new word! Flaffing -- what a wonderful word! Thank you!

And one of my favorite SNL lines..."If it's not Scottish, it's crap!"

 

[Sirius Glass]

Can we take an abstraction of this thread?

 

[jtk]

Flaffing about with definitions isn't going to get us anywhere.

Yes.

 

[removed account4]

https://www.gocomics.com/nancy/2018/04/27

 

[Bill Burk]

Why is the "abstract" label important to you ?

It's not important, I just like to avoid labels that are wrong, so if I shouldn't call something abstract maybe I won't

 

[jtk]

JTK, When I read your initial post I didn't imagine you were referring to anyone on this forum. However, you made clear statements about what abstracts should or shouldn't be, which would be more interesting if you provided examples. I don't agree that art must always be premeditated in toto. In fact, I used Niepce's original photograph as an example. In my mind, it is a work that can stand alone as an abstract (though knowing its history certainly contributes to this conclusion), despite that fact that as viewed today it is entirely accidental and I presume unrelated to his original intent.

wyofilm, I appreciate your angle on this.

I hope I've never suggested that "art must always be premeditated in toto" , but some may read that into zone system's previsualization.

The title of this thread inspired a wide range of responses, many of them well thought out, some of them not so much. Good odds.

I don't understand how "original intent" relates to photograph titles, but "abstract" seem to let some viewers off some kind of "art" hook with an easy answer (wish I hadn't called that "condescending" earlier).

 

[removed account4]

It's not important, I just like to avoid labels that are wrong, so if I shouldn't call something abstract maybe I won't

bill
im not sure what the problem is
if a photographer can photograph an ocean and stary night and it is black and wavy and stary
and the photographer calls it and "abstract image" but others say " hey thats the water and sky at night"
why does it matter what you might call it ? aren't both right ?

 

[Bill Burk]

Why is the "abstract" label meaningful to you?

I’ve been fascinated by some of the examples I gave. I believe Minor White’s explanation of the clockwise and counterclockwise communication cycle. I think it would be really cool to come up with a print that does something like that.

So although the definition of abstract might literally mean something else, I can use the word to describe what I have in mind.

The result would be a print, and it may communicate bi-directionally if I am successful. No matter what it’s called. (Was that what Shakespeare meant ‘a rose by any other name’ ?).

And while I have been experimenting with it a bit, I haven’t been talking about the idea until this discussion came about. I have a little better plan now.

Thanks

 

[NedL]

This actually sounds like a fun project, to try a series right at the line between nature and abstract.

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.

 

[wyofilm]

So although the definition of abstract might literally mean something else, I can use the word to describe what I have in mind.

When Georgia O'Keeffe titles her painting 'Abstraction White Rose' is helps me understand her use of colors and circular movements in this painting. I understand (correctly or incorrectly) her to be painting an essence of the object. Without the title my understanding of that connection would likely be missing. Abstract as she meant it here was to abstract something of the larger - to pull out of. Other properties are abstracted - color, light, etc. Her use of abstract in the title was useful to me.

To describe a composition, photograph or otherwise, rests with another definition of abstract. Balance, leading lines, shapes, perspective, dark and light masses, and on and on, are abstract ideas with no physical or concrete basis. Creator and viewer can agree the kitten's head is placed according to the composition rule of thirds, an abstract idea.

And finally there is 'abstract' art - the most nebulous of all the abstract definitions and the most personalized. This means that while the creator can have one definition in mind, the viewer may have a different definition. Oh, well. In Edward Weston's Pepper No. 30, a clear abstract piece to my eyes even though I know it is a pepper, many claim to see strong sexual themes. Weston claimed that there were no sexual themes in his Pepper series. Completely different interpretations of a clear representation of a pepper. How can this be. Easy, it is an abstract photograph ... even though it is clearly a pepper.

 

[removed account4]

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.

maybe its just me, but i think it depends completely on the audience looking at it.

 

[Bill Burk]

bill
im not sure what the problem is
if a photographer can photograph an ocean and stary night and it is black and wavy and stary
and the photographer calls it and "abstract image" but others say " hey thats the water and sky at night"
why does it matter what you might call it ? aren't both right ?

Sure, that's because it's not wrong.

I've got a negative in the enlarger, ready to print, where in my original notes when I took the shot, I called it "Izitso" - the title of Cat Stevens' album that it reminded me of at the time.
Well... that label is wrong. This is not a photograph of anyone playing with a yo-yo.. I've alternately titled it grotto, because it's more a sheltered stream scene where the water wanders through.
The album cover it reminded me of is Cat Stevens' "Back to Earth" but the title of the album it reminded me of was wrong in the first place.

So I'm not sure original intent is a good thing to base titles on either.

 

[faberryman]

why does it matter what you might call it ? aren't both right ?

I am not a big fan of titling photographs but I know you are supposed to because, variously, that is the convention, so gallery owners/people in general can easily identify them, so the viewer knows your intent, etc., but I am generally against it, because I have to think them up, they are arbitrary, and they direct/limit the viewer's thoughts about the image. I also am not sure shoehorning an image into a genre label is all that helpful either. Accordingly, I don't think narrowly drawn definitions are of much benefit. Does it really matter? And to whom? If I title something "Abstract 1254", who (besides a few in this thread) is going to quibble over whether it is really an abstract? If they do, I'd say the image is either pretty unsuccessful or the person has an agenda.

 

[removed account4]

Sure, that's because it's not wrong.

I've got a negative in the enlarger, ready to print, where in my original notes when I took the shot, I called it "Izitso" - the title of Cat Stevens' album that it reminded me of at the time.
Well... that label is wrong. This is not a photograph of anyone playing with a yo-yo.. I've alternately titled it grotto, because it's more a sheltered stream scene where the water wanders through.
The album cover it reminded me of is Cat Stevens' "Back to Earth" but the title of the album it reminded me of was wrong in the first place.

So I'm not sure original intent is a good thing to base titles on either

i call it whatever for you want ... cause it doesn't really matter ...

I am not a big fan of titling photographs but I know you are supposed to because, variously, that is the convention, so gallery owners/people in general can easily identify them, so the viewer knows your intent, etc., but I am against it, because I have to think them up, they are arbitrary, and they direct/limit the viewer's thoughts about the image. I am not sure shoehorning an image into a genre label is all that helpful either. Accordingly, I don't think narrowly drawn definitions are of much benefit.

i hate titling photographs and ...to hell with conventions ..

 

[jtk]

...

Sure, that's because it's not wrong.

I've got a negative in the enlarger, ready to print, where in my original notes when I took the shot, I called it "Izitso" - the title of Cat Stevens' album that it reminded me of at the time.
Well... that label is wrong. This is not a photograph of anyone playing with a yo-yo.. I've alternately titled it grotto, because it's more a sheltered stream scene where the water wanders through.
The album cover it reminded me of is Cat Stevens' "Back to Earth" but the title of the album it reminded me of was wrong in the first place.

So I'm not sure original intent is a good thing to base titles on either.

Great reflections !

As almost all of us know, sculptures and paintings are have titles, even if just a number and series name.

They're rarely titled "abstract" ...perhaps because artists (and photographers) usually know their intent....if only the intent to depict a subject, place, or event.

Since "photographic art" is commonly mere decor, pretty pictures, postcards etc, few photographers bother to call themselves "artists." Does anybody disagree with that?

Me, I admire technically competent photographers more than I admire self-identified "artists". That's why I like successful professional photographers....people like Penn, Avedon, Platon.