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

[jtk]

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

What do you think?

 

[Joe Jesus]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm not sure the entire category of "abstract photos" can be described up with one statement.

 

[Eric Rose]

 

[David Brown]

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

What do you think?

I think you’re wrong.

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

I disagree.

 

[Vaughn]

Abstract
verb
/abˈstrakt/
1.consider (something) theoretically or separately from something else.
2.extract or remove (something).

I think that pretty much describes what we do in photography.

 

[jtk]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm not sure the entire category of "abstract photos" can be described up with one statement.

The readers among us will note that I said "too commonly." And of course, that's "just" my opinion.

 

[jtk]

Abstract
verb
/abˈstrakt/
1.consider (something) theoretically or separately from something else.
2.extract or remove (something).

I think that pretty much describes what we do in photography.

To abstract (the verb to which you're referring) is far different from using the abstract label (an adjective) to glorify accidents.

It's true that some photographers enjoy lots of accidents, but few make a virtues of that. A scene that isn't immediately identifiable is different from errors of craft, wouldn't you say?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I think a better definition of abstract is as it relates to art:
"Art that does not attempt to represent external reality, but seeks to achieve its effect using shapes, forms, colors, and textures."

 

[jim10219]

True abstract photography may not even be possible. Or at least, it's not easy to accomplish with a camera since even a blurry photo of something that is completely unrecognizable is still a representation of something. But that's a philosophical debate.

While I don't think most "abstract" photography is accidental, I do think most of it is poorly done. Good abstract art forces your mind to turn inward. It evokes a purely emotional response devoid of context. Most "abstract" photography just leaves you wondering what it's a photo of, which is the complete opposite of what good abstract art should do. Still, I have seen a few photos that accomplish the same goal as good abstract art, even if they weren't truly abstract.

 

[mshchem]

Classic, I've got the disc, need to watch, take my mind of all the news .

 

[Vaughn]

To abstract (the verb to which you're referring) is far different from using the abstract label (an adjective) to glorify accidents.

It's true that some photographers enjoy lots of accidents, but few make a virtues of that. A scene that isn't immediately identifiable is different from errors of craft, wouldn't you say?

No. I do not think any of that is significant.

Basically what Jim said.

 

[Bill Burk]

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

 

[faberryman]

"Abstract" has come to mean "accidental results, limited intentions" too commonly. What do you think?

I think most photographs show accidental results and limited intentions too commonly. No reason to single out abstracts.

 

[jtk]

True abstract photography may not even be possible. Or at least, it's not easy to accomplish with a camera since even a blurry photo of something that is completely unrecognizable is still a representation of something. But that's a philosophical debate.

While I don't think most "abstract" photography is accidental, I do think most of it is poorly done. Good abstract art forces your mind to turn inward. It evokes a purely emotional response devoid of context. Most "abstract" photography just leaves you wondering what it's a photo of, which is the complete opposite of what good abstract art should do. Still, I have seen a few photos that accomplish the same goal as good abstract art, even if they weren't truly abstract.

Yes.

 

[jtk]

I think most photographs show accidental results and limited intentions too commonly. No reason to single out abstracts.

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

 

[jtk]

I think a better definition of abstract is as it relates to art:
"Art that does not attempt to represent external reality, but seeks to achieve its effect using shapes, forms, colors, and textures."

That's reasonable, except that I wouldn't go so far as to label all "abstract" photos as "art."

 

[Vaughn]

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

And as he mentions, so is "Portrait", "Landscape", "Nude", etc...

 

[jtk]

And as he mentions, so is "Portrait", "Landscape", "Nude", etc...

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

 

[faberryman]

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

Not really. I don't think there is anything unique about the abstract label in that regard. I think the same thing can be said about all kinds of different images.

 

[jtk]

I think you’re wrong.

Yes, but you're evidently a Texan

 

[jtk]

I disagree.

Good. Why? How?

 

[jtk]

Not really. I don't think there is anything unique about the abstract label in that regard. I think the same thing can be said about all kinds of different images.

OK...so it appears that you're of the "everything is everything and we're all together" totally non-judgemental school of photography, language, art etc. Yes?

 

[faberryman]

OK...so it appears that you're of the "everything is everything and we're all together" totally non-judgemental school of photography, language, art etc. Yes?

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 as to your intention and capability.

 

[BrianShaw]

I agree with Jesus (post 2)

... and Jim (Post 10)... this really describes my on-going “admiration” of a Barbara Kasten hanging aside my favorite easy chair.