This form is secure
Send a message
Search for members
This post is public
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may
learn how to do it.
Pablo Picasso, Spanish Cubist painter (1881 - 1973)
In the spirit of Picasso's quotation, this post will be on abstract photography, a subject which I love but have no real experience or formal training in. So, please post or email me with comments or corrections and please take whatever I say with a grain of salt.
First, I'll record a few definitions.
Call a photographic composition abstract if its subject is somehow separate or `abstracted' from
reality. Likewise, abstract art is art that does not depict objects in the natural world, but instead
uses color and form in a non-representational way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_art).
Abstract art places a new world, which on the surface has
nothing to do with 'reality,' next to the 'real' world.
Wassily Kandinsky, Russian abstract artist (1866-1944)
Abstract photography is of course distinct from documentary photography, which illustrates or `reports' something external to the photographer. The book by Hurn and Jay (On being a photographer, 3rd edition, LensWork Publishing, Anacortes, WA, 2007) has an excellent description of documentary photography.
Abstract photography can be subdivided into two subfields:
- Non-objective or non-representational abstract photography. A special case of non-objective abstract photography is geometric abstract photography, which is based
on the use of simple geometric forms combined into non-objective compositions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_abstraction). - Representational abstract photography: A photographic composition representating a real object in an unusual way which illustrates a pattern or abstract concept.
To the complaint, 'There are no people in these photographs,'
I respond, 'There are always two people: the photographer and the viewer.
Ansel Adams, US nature photographer (1902 - 1984)
One might argue that all photography is abstract in that it is a depiction of a moment frozen in time separated from the constantly changing nature of reality. However, abstract photography is not `reporting' a scene or event, it is depicting a concept. A photograph can be both representational yet connotate an abstract concept - for example, an photograph of a place of worship. To some extent, whether a photograph is primarily abstract or not is a subjective matter for the viewer.
I'll end with another quotation by Picasso:
There is no abstract art. You must always start with something. Afterward you can remove all traces of reality.
Pablo Picasso
Comments?
Daniel Schwabepro says:
To me, any image (in fact, any sign) used in communication necessarily undergoes an interpretation process - there is "something" in the real world which is represented, this representation is then shown to the viewer, who then constructs some "meaning" in his/her own mind.
Sometimes the representation is very close to a physical reality also perceived by the viewer, in which case it is could be called "representational" or "documentary". Sometimes, this representation bears very little direct relation to any (obvious) physical reality that the viewer can relate to, so it becomes "abstract". Since this depends on the viewer's interpretation process, I agree with your statement - it has to be a subjective matter for the viewer.
This play between interpretations is one of the things that makes photography fun for me - seeing different "realities" around me that often go undetected to the "normal" eye (i.e., bound and conditioned by conventional interpretations).
Have a nice day!
Daniel Schwabe edited this comment 16 months ago.
jake makes slideshowspro says:
In one sense, no photo can be abstract. Every photo is a photo of something.
Commonly people refer to a photo as abstract if they cannot perceive what it is a photo of.
For my group Geometric Abstracts, I use the criteria that the geometry of the picture dominates the composition and overides the representational content.
In painting the use of the word abstract is legitimate., in photography, I think not.
--
Seen in ojisanjake home page (?)
Jerry Lee says:
Gary Austin says:
Ojisanjake's description of composition predominating over content seems very reasonable to me. In other words, what was the photographer trying to emphasize?
wdjpro says:
Daniel Schwabepro replies:
Daniel Schwabepro says:
I believe it only makes sense to discuss abstraction in the context of communication between the photographer and the viewer. My point above is that it is much more dependent on the viewer's interpretation (i.e., the receiver of the communication) than in the photographer's intent (i.e., the sender).
Consider a photo of an ink stain on a wall (or the photo of an abstract art painting). To some, it may bring some emotion or sense of aesthetical beauty, without being associated to any physical world object. To others it may be just literally "the image of an ink stain on a wall". So, depending on how the viewer "sees" it (i.e., assigns some meaning or reacts to it), it will be considered abstract or not. This happens independently of the original photographer's actual intent, and accounts for the varied responses the photo may get - many think it is brilliant, and many don't see anything special.
wdjpro says:
Jerry: I guess an out-of-focus shot could be abstract, if it is used to emphasize a particular aspect of the image.
wdj edited this comment 16 months ago.
Daniel Schwabepro replies: