Post your abstract photographs here

[Billy Axeman]

really ?
i have never heard such rigid definitions of photography or photographic genres ...
its good to know ... thanks !
.....

Yes I am very strict

The 'abstract' originally is a genre in painting. The point is that there is a fundamental difference between an abstract painting and an abstract photo in the way you work.

Making an abstract painting is a straightforward process. Every stroke of the brush simply adds something to the canvas until it is ready.

Making an abstract photo is much more complicated because the camera registers an image that is inherently not abstract. So you need an extra process to convert the photo to abstract, which can be done by cropping, post-processing on the computer, walking over it while it is raining, or any other manipulation you can think of.

What I say in my post #23 is that any reference to this process, or to the source of the image, nullifies your attempt to get an abstract image.

For example you can start taking a picture from a dog, and then you modify a print from the photo using a special chemical process to make it abstract.

However, if you tell an observer that the abstract photo is actually a modified dog, then the observer suddenly doesn't perceive the image as abstract anymore. This effect is even worse when you give the abstract a title of an object in real life (for example "Lame dog"), because you are instantly sabotaging your own attempt to get something abstract. A dog is not abstract and an abstract object can't be a picture of a dog, they are mutually exclusive.

 

[Billy Axeman]

So you are saying if an image is an image of something, it can't be an abstract, or if the photographer tells you what it is it loses its nature as an abstract. Sounds like photographers should just keep it's identity a secret. Also, can you expand on what you mean by "non-figurative".

Your first question, see the explanation in my answer to jnanian.

Non-figurative - Look it up in a dictionary, for example:
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonfigurative
"(Art Terms) (of art) not representing actual or natural objects or realities; abstract"

 

[faberryman]

However, if you tell an observer that the abstract photo is actually a modified dog, then the observer suddenly doesn't perceive the image as abstract anymore. This effect is even worse when you give the abstract a title of an object in real life (for example "Lame dog"), because you are instantly sabotaging your own attempt to get something abstract. A dog is not abstract and an abstract object can't be a picture of a dog, they are mutually exclusive.

So to remain abstract the photographer should simply not tell anyone it is a picture of a dog? That's enough?

 

[jtk]

Your first question, see the explanation in my answer to jnanian.

Non-figurative - Look it up in a dictionary, for example:
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonfigurative
"(Art Terms) (of art) not representing actual or natural objects or realities; abstract"

Much ado about nothing.

Well, almost nothing

What once seemed like a photograph is thereby reduced to a frilly decoration for nothing more than a semantic exercise...

 

[Billy Axeman]

So to remain abstract the photographer should simply not tell anyone it is a picture of a dog? That's enough?

Well, not telling an observer about your process or not choosing a title that references to the original only prevents that a perfectly abstract image isn't perceived as abstract anymore. If the image itself is indeed abstract is another question.

 

[faberryman]

However, if you tell an observer that the abstract photo is actually a modified dog, then the observer suddenly doesn't perceive the image as abstract anymore. This effect is even worse when you give the abstract a title of an object in real life (for example "Lame dog"), because you are instantly sabotaging your own attempt to get something abstract. A dog is not abstract and an abstract object can't be a picture of a dog, they are mutually exclusive.

Well, not telling an observer about your process or not choosing a title that references to the original only prevents that a perfectly abstract image isn't perceived as abstract anymore. If the image itself is indeed abstract is another question.

Well that is the question, isn't it? On the one hand, you say they are mutually exclusive, on the other hand, you beg the question. I tend to be a little more flexible in my thinking, especially where art is concerned. Otherwise, your arguments tend to fall prey to the logical fallacy of false dilemma aka black and white or either/or thinking.

 

[Billy Axeman]

 

[awty]

Lost In Translation

 

[Pieter12]

Is that supposed to be abstract by your definition? It clearly looks representational to me. Not sure of what, some textured surface (paper? linoleum? vinyl?), but I recognize it as a straightforward representation.

 

[Billy Axeman]

Lost In Translation

That's nice Paul.
Your photo's on Flickr are even better, I like the surrealistic atmosphere.

 

[awty]

That's nice Paul.
Your photo's on Flickr are even better, I like the surrealistic atmosphere.

Thanks Billy. I like your pictures to, simple day to day subjects that have cohesion.

 

[Billy Axeman]

Is that supposed to be abstract by your definition? It clearly looks representational to me. Not sure of what, some textured surface (paper? linoleum? vinyl?), but I recognize it as a straightforward representation.

These are photo's from abstract paintings ...

 

[faberryman]

These are photo's from abstract paintings ...

Do you know the name of the artist and the titles of the paintings?

 

[awty]

Actually this is probably more proper abstract.....or is it cubism? I know nothing of art.

Mood Indigo......great song any how.

 

[Billy Axeman]

Actually this is probably more proper abstract.....or is it cubism? I know nothing of art.
Mood Indigo......great song any how.

This is just as good as 'Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue'.

 

[removed account4]

Yes I am very strict

The 'abstract' originally is a genre in painting. The point is that there is a fundamental difference between an abstract painting and an abstract photo in the way you work.

Making an abstract painting is a straightforward process. Every stroke of the brush simply adds something to the canvas until it is ready.

Making an abstract photo is much more complicated because the camera registers an image that is inherently not abstract. So you need an extra process to convert the photo to abstract, which can be done by cropping, post-processing on the computer, walking over it while it is raining, or any other manipulation you can think of.

What I say in my post #23 is that any reference to this process, or to the source of the image, nullifies your attempt to get an abstract image.

For example you can start taking a picture from a dog, and then you modify a print from the photo using a special chemical process to make it abstract.

However, if you tell an observer that the abstract photo is actually a modified dog, then the observer suddenly doesn't perceive the image as abstract anymore. This effect is even worse when you give the abstract a title of an object in real life (for example "Lame dog"), because you are instantly sabotaging your own attempt to get something abstract. A dog is not abstract and an abstract object can't be a picture of a dog, they are mutually exclusive.

thanks .. its good to have a framework.
what happens if you put a title on the work and say
something else besides composition #2 or abstraction #5
are titles that allude to something, even what the image originally was
OK ?
ive made countless abstract photographs and usually they have some sort of
name, whether they refer back to what it was or not, no clue

thanks
john

 

[marcofimages]

Sorry to say, but an 'abstract dune shot' is a contradictio in terminis, because abstract is non-figurative by definition. Even when the image appears abstract at first sight but the title says it's a dune, it's not abstract anymore.

From the Oxford dictionary:
ABSTRACT
Relating to or denoting art that does not attempt to represent external reality, but rather seeks to achieve its effect using shapes, colors, and textures.

I think there is room in the definition.

-- There are no rules.

 

[removed account4]

-- There are no rules.

that's the only rule from what i remember ///

 

[Vaughn]

From the Oxford dictionary:
ABSTRACT
Relating to or denoting art that does not attempt to represent external reality, but rather seeks to achieve its effect using shapes, colors, and textures.

I think there is room in the definition.

-- There are no rules.

And old EW said, heavily paraphrased, that all abstracts are really grounded in nature, from where we get all the shapes, colors, and textures. So...an abstract from Pt. Lobos...

 

[JensH]

Hi,

what about these two ones:

MGBM_095 Air, quartz crystal and leaf by Jens Hallfeldt, auf Flickr

MGBM_082 by Jens Hallfeldt, auf Flickr

Part of the Miflex project, here vintage glass plates were exposed by a microscope camera (Zeiss Miflex) from the 30s on a 1929 Zeiss FCE microscope.

Greetings
Jens

 

[Rick A]

 

[removed account4]

And old EW said, heavily paraphrased, that all abstracts are really grounded in nature, from where we get all the shapes, colors, and textures. So...an abstract from Pt. Lobos...

uh oh ... you ( and EW ) said they are rocks ... so by Billy Axeman's this can't be an abstraction
whatever it is, its nice-nice !
john

 

[faberryman]

uh oh ... you ( and EW ) said they are rocks ... so by Billy Axeman's this can't be an abstraction

You can't believe everything you read on the internet.

 

[Billy Axeman]

It's a totally new idea that the way you choose a title for an abstract is important for an observer to interpret the image as abstract or not, so it's logical that it needs some time to be accepted.


The strange thing is that abstract painters are often using titles with objects from the real world. Searching for examples I found "The Swimmer" from Sandra Blow [1], but an abstract painting has no figurative history so I guess you can be more relaxed about it.

Converting a photo to abstract can be avoided by directly working with the medium (film, paper) without using a camera. This is more the way a painter works. One example of an artist doing this is Justine Varga [2][3].

[1] Rhythm in blues: Sandra Blow's abstract paintings – in pictures
https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...sandra-blow-paintings-fine-art-society-london

[2] Justine Varga: making photos without a camera – in pictures
https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...ga-taking-photos-without-a-camera-in-pictures

[3] Justine Varga - Artist profile
http://www.artistprofile.com.au/justine-varga/

 

[Sirius Glass]

From the Oxford dictionary:
ABSTRACT
Relating to or denoting art that does not attempt to represent external reality, but rather seeks to achieve its effect using shapes, colors, and textures.

I think there is room in the definition.

-- There are no rules.

I agree with the Oxford English Dictionary, but I am not going to attempt to control the content of this thread.