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

[jtk]

Minor White taught that abstract photographs blur the line of communication from photographer's intent to what the viewer sees.

So I would think "intent" is irrelevant for abstracts. You put it out there and the viewer tells you what they see.

http://beefalobill.com/images/white_cycle.jpg

I'd like to read something by Minor White or his direct students on this matter. I'm familiar with many of his and their prints and recognize that Photrio denizens might label some as "abstract" ..however I think those examples (e.g. famous ice crystals on glass) all (maybe) refer directly to physical phenomena the highly skilled photographer and observant person both recognize in the world, without being photographed (e.g. ice on glass). I don't know of examples that are mere phototech muddles.

 

[jtk]

I agree with Jesus (post 2)

What would Jesus do?

 

[BrianShaw]

What would Jesus do?

Indeed!!!!

 

[jtk]

My judgment is that you are very quick to generalize. In philosophical terms, it is the logical fallacy of defective induction. And I think you do it to stir up controversy, which is sometimes good on a forum. It starts a discussion. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

That's OK. Except that the truth (another philosophical concept) is that I'd like to precipitate change in the way certain terms (e.g. "abstract" e.g. "art") are used.

 

[faberryman]

That's OK. Except that the truth (another philosophical concept) is that I'd like to precipitate change in the way certain terms (e.g. "abstract" e.g. "art") are used.

Well then, that's what you should be doing instead. What changes do you suggest?

 

[Vaughn]

Nude is nude, portrait is portrait, landscape is landscape. Not similar to purported "abstract", which sometimes points only to accident.

No, I disagree. There is no difference. "Accident" in my mind is the same as "without intent"...like taking a landscape or portrait just because the subject is pretty.

 

[jtk]

No, I disagree. There is no difference. "Accident" in my mind is the same as "without intent"...like taking a landscape or portrait just because the subject is pretty.

OK. You do seem to have an unusually rigorous idea of the meaning of "intent."

 

[Vaughn]

OK. You do seem to have an unusually rigorous idea of the meaning of "intent."

Yes, it is the jump between craft and art.

 

[warden]

"Abstract" has come to mean "accidental results, limited intentions" too commonly.

What do you think?

I think your thesis is tiresome and easy, in the same camp as the worn out "my kid could have painted that" insults.

 

[Sirius Glass]

"Abstract" is often used to glorify photos that do not demonstrate photographer's intent or capability. Do you agree?

No

 

[Vaughn]

Interesting...I am starting to see some of jtk's reasoning...or just being too silly with words...

Abstract art is a different level of classification than one's media. That is, a portrait can be done in an abstract manner, as can the landscape, still lifes, etc. From the Tate website: "The term can be applied to art that is based an object, figure or landscape, where forms have been simplified or schematised."

"Abstract Art " is an art form. Perhaps the term should only be used by those who consider themselves to be artists. Who else but an artist can work in an art form? If one is a photographer who does not consider him or herself to be an artist, then he or she can only mimic abstract art, not create it.

 

[faberryman]

Interesting...I am starting to see some of jtk's reasoning...or just being too silly with words...

Abstract art is a different level of classification than one's media. That is, a portrait can be done in an abstract manner, as can the landscape, still lifes, etc. From the Tate website: "The term can be applied to art that is based an object, figure or landscape, where forms have been simplified or schematised."

"Abstract Art " is an art form. Perhaps the term should only be used by those who consider themselves to be artists. Who else but an artist can work in an art form? If one is a photographer who does not consider him or herself to be an artist, then he or she can only mimic abstract art, not create it.

If I remember correctly, in the past, jtk has criticized some photographs labeled as abstract as being too representational to fit the genre, so I don't think he would be accepting of the Tate's broader definition, though I don't see any problem with it. Generally speaking, I think that semantic arguments are not all that helpful in getting to the crux of the matter.

 

[Vaughn]

Agreed -- sort of the point I was making, in sort of an abstract way...

 

[Saganich]

I'd like to read something by Minor White or his direct students on this matter. I'm familiar with many of his and their prints and recognize that Photrio denizens might label some as "abstract" ..however I think those examples (e.g. famous ice crystals on glass) all (maybe) refer directly to physical phenomena the highly skilled photographer and observant person both recognize in the world, without being photographed (e.g. ice on glass). I don't know of examples that are mere phototech muddles.

They may be purposeful, highly manipulated, or accidental the point I think your making is you feel they may lack justification in many or most cases...the movement from "wow that's cool" to "this is why it draws the viewer in and occupies their mind". Being able to justify why an abstract image (regardless of the medium) works. Why Mondrian? Why Pollack? Why White? Those whys are legitimate and should be studied and understood. The problem is there is a somewhat poor understanding of these matters in photography...or let me rephrase that...too many photographers who don't make a study of it perhaps.

 

[Bill Burk]

I'd like to read something by Minor White or his direct students on this matter. I'm familiar with many of his and their prints and recognize that Photrio denizens might label some as "abstract" ..however I think those examples (e.g. famous ice crystals on glass) all (maybe) refer directly to physical phenomena the highly skilled photographer and observant person both recognize in the world, without being photographed (e.g. ice on glass). I don't know of examples that are mere phototech muddles.

I don’t consider myself an abstract photographer, but you saw something in my ‘Never Again’ shot that I didn’t.

You told me what the photo looks like. And that’s all I think the best abstracts are ... when a photo means different things to different people.

 

[jtk]

They may be purposeful, highly manipulated, or accidental the point I think your making is you feel they may lack justification in many or most cases...the movement from "wow that's cool" to "this is why it draws the viewer in and occupies their mind". Being able to justify why an abstract image (regardless of the medium) works. Why Mondrian? Why Pollack? Why White? Those whys are legitimate and should be studied and understood. The problem is there is a somewhat poor understanding of these matters in photography...or let me rephrase that...too many photographers who don't make a study of it perhaps.

I partially agree.

I do not think photography is more comparable to painting than is, say, cooking.

A photographs merit is reduced when painters are cited to imply significance. That seems a defensive tactic...the photographer intends to preempt the viewer's legitimate response.

 

[removed account4]

pigeon holes ! ... kittens and sunsets !

No, I disagree. There is no difference. "Accident" in my mind is the same as "without intent"...like taking a landscape or portrait just because the subject is pretty.

but vaughn isn't 99% of photography, or things that pass as "art photography" beauty shots if not of the landscape, people or things ?
that is the intent of the photographer to take these photographs and i am exchanging pretty for beauty cause its like a cute puppy or kitten

 

[jtk]

I don’t consider myself an abstract photographer, but you saw something in my ‘Never Again’ shot that I didn’t.

You told me what the photo looks like. And that’s all I think the best abstracts are ... when a photo means different things to different people.

I hope everyone will view Bill Burk's "Never Again" photo in Media because he's making an important point.

 

[faberryman]

I partially agree.

I do not think photography is more comparable to painting than is, say, cooking.

A photographs merit is reduced when painters are cited to imply significance. That seems a defensive tactic...the photographer intends to preempt the viewer's legitimate response.

Doubtful. The photographer probably just lacks a better language to express himself.

 

[jtk]

Perhaps some images can't rise above "abstract" for the same reason they don't rise above decor. Decor is a good thing in it's place, of course. Does art strive to accomplish more than decor?

 

[jtk]

If I remember correctly, in the past, jtk has criticized some photographs labeled as abstract as being too representational to fit the genre, so I don't think he would be accepting of the Tate's broader definition, though I don't see any problem with it. Generally speaking, I think that semantic arguments are not all that helpful in getting to the crux of the matter.

Regarding Tate's "broader definition"...perhaps you will start a thread about that and about "the matter" and "crux" rather than purporting to speak for me. Nice try, no cigar

 

[removed account4]

Perhaps some images can't rise above "abstract" for the same reason they don't rise above decor. Decor is a good thing in it's place, of course. Does art strive to accomplish more than decor?

most images don't rise about decor, so called abstract or "fine art" or anything else

 

[jtk]

Interesting...I am starting to see some of jtk's reasoning...or just being too silly with words...

Abstract art is a different level of classification than one's media. That is, a portrait can be done in an abstract manner, as can the landscape, still lifes, etc. From the Tate website: "The term can be applied to art that is based an object, figure or landscape, where forms have been simplified or schematised."

"Abstract Art " is an art form. Perhaps the term should only be used by those who consider themselves to be artists. Who else but an artist can work in an art form? If one is a photographer who does not consider him or herself to be an artist, then he or she can only mimic abstract art, not create it.

Your "mimic" vs "create" point is interesting and seems fundamental. How many of us have, like me, photographed bell peppers with Weston in mind?

 

[faberryman]

Regarding Tate's "broader definition"...perhaps you will start a thread about that and about "the matter" and "crux" rather than purporting to speak for me. Nice try, no cigar

I wasn't speaking for you. I was anticipating your response based on my recollection of some of your prior posts. I don't need to start a new thread. The Tate position has been stated and I said that I didn't have a problem with it. If anyone else wishes to chime in they are free to do so.

 

[removed account4]

Your "mimic" vs "create" point is interesting and seems fundamental. How many of us have, like me, photographed bell peppers with Weston in mind?

not me, i don't really see the point of copying what others have done or do ...
i have never thought his peppers were abstract images, they were photographs of peppers...
and i am a so-called abstract photograph maker who likes serendipity and has no problem with chance