ku # 830 ~ Autumn color # 55

Reflection ~ Wilmington, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenI am curious regarding your thoughts on the notion of abstract pictures.

Quite obviously, there is such a thing as abstract painting. On the other hand, there is considerable consent that there is also such a thing as abstract photography. Me, on the other hand ... I'm not so sure that a reality based medium is in any way capable of making "abstract" pictures.

Much of this so-called abstract photography is, in fact, made by employing the tenets and techniques of straight photography - pointing a camera at a real-world referent and making a relatively straight forward print of the created image. No "special effects" needed or employed. Most often, the pictured referent is presented with an emphasis on patterns, textures, and the like although high marks are given for a pictured referent that is rendered in a way (without "special effects") so as to be relatively unidentifiable.

You know the kind of picture I'm referring to - as an example, the ever ubiquitous pictures of patterns in ice. Now, there is absolutely nothing "wrong" with picturing such things, nothing at all, but, IMO, the pictures are not abstract pictures. They are, in fact, (like in the best of such pictures) completely straight pictures of abstract patterns as found and observed in the natural / real world.

My question is .... does this straightforward act of making a picture of a real-world referent, sans special effects, really qualify as an abstract picture? Or, is the term "abstract photography" just a lame label used by the terminally unimaginative as a means of saying, "It's art. Really it is. It really is art. You know, just like painting."

ku # 829 ~ Autumn color # 54

Dead tree ~ Wilmington, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenI am also curious regarding your thoughts on the notion of when a picture, albeit made by photographic means / processes, is no longer a photograph?

Or, do you believe that, if a picture is made by photographic means / processes, it is always a photograph?

Update on Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 09:33AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: "chuck" (no linked provided, as is always the case with spineless internet flamers) asked: "... And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

my response: I think the number is 1,879, but I'm not totally certain about that. I'll have to see if I can find some quotes from others to back that up.

ku # 828 ~ Autumn color # 53

Fox ~ Wanakena, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenOn ku # 827 Mary Dennis asked:

... am I imagining things? Is that dark spot at the grass/tree dividing line a black bear snout?

Yes, Mary, you are imaging things. We didn't encounter any bears on our recent getaway despite the fact that, on the general store's community bulletin board (in Wakanena), there were several recent up-close-and-personal reports of bear encounters.

That said, we did see a rather unusual number of fox in several different locations.

ku # 827 ~ Autumn color # 52

Grasses and growth ~ Long Lake, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen

ku # 826 ~ Autumn color # 49 / on seeing

Red leaves / blue berries ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenWhile I was away I did have some time to ponder the notion of seeing and the most prominent conclusion that resulted was that neither teaching nor learning how to see is an easy undertaking.

That said, clues and hints, re: the act of seeing, can be found quite readily in the words and, quite obviously, in the pictures of those who are very successful at seeing as well as putting the results of that act into their pictures. And, make no mistake about it, seeing and making good/interesting pictures of what you see are 2 distinctly different skills.

To be perfectly clear on that distinction, I would opine that while many are very accomplished at making pictures, relatively few are very adept at seeing anything beyond what everyone else sees, aka: the obviuos. They are, in the words of Brooks Jensen, making pictures that represent what they have been told (or conditioned to believe) are good pictures ...

Real photography begins when we let go of what we have been told is a good photograph and start photographing what we see ~ Brooks Jensen

And, relative to the making of such "good" pictures, Jensen also states that ...

... eventually every photographer who sticks with it long enough arrives a technical plateau where production of technically good photographs is relatively easy. It is here that real photography starts and most photographers quit

... hence, the many who are adept at making "good" pictures but are failures, re: the act of seeing. They are very good at noting the obvious - what everyone else sees - but no so good at really seeing the not so readily apparent.

One reason (amongst many) that this is so was addressed by the American artist and teacher, Robert Henri, in his book, THE ART SPIRIT ...

The greatness of art depends absolutely upon the greatness of the artist's individuality and on the same source depends the power to acquire a technique sufficient for expression ... [T]he man who is forever acquiring technique with the idea that sometimes he may have something to express, will never have the technique of the thing he wishes to express ... [T]he technique learned without a purpose is a formula which, when used, knocks the life out of any idea to which it is applied ... technique can only be used properly by those who have definite purpose in what they do, and it is only they who invent technique. Otherwise it is the work of parrots ....

To wit, most would-be artists put the cart before the horse. Their efforts are first directed at acquiring / "mastering" technique when, in fact, they should be learning how to see. By first acquiring technique they become slaves to the technique and can only see the world through that lens (photographically speaking).

All of that said, you've read it before and I'll write it again - want to learn how to see?

STEP # 1 - remember to forget. Forget about all that you have been told is a good picture. Start to look at the world around you and begin to see what you can see.

STEP # 2 - one camera, one lens is the way to go. Simplify the technique / technicals and get on with the act of making pictures for the act of making pictures will help you to be able to connect with the act of seeing.

ku # 825 ~ Autumn color # 45

The wife canoes into the West ~ Blue Mt. Lake, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen

ku # 824 ~ Autumn color # 43

River foam / Oswegatchie River ~ Wanakena, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenThe foamy residue on the shoreline is not the result of pollution. Foam such as this forms when gases are trapped in water as bubbles and these bubbles are stabilized (do not readily burst).

Many substances can cause the stabilization of air bubbles in water. Naturally occurring organic compounds and detritus from river organisms can cause the bubbles to stabilize and not burst readily. Bubbles form more readily in roiling water (where air and water are mixed because of the turbulence of the water) so we get more bubbles formed in turbulent rivers and these bubbles are then stabilized by the presence of organic compounds.

The foam seen here was pictured below the rapids in Wanakena, NY.

ku # 823 ~ twig alert - Autumn color # 40

Rain soaked Autumn tangle ~ NYS Rt. 28 near Raquette Lake, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenEven when I go driving by at 60-65MPH, colors, shapes, lines, and their dynamic visual relationships grab my attention like a sharp poke in the eye.