ku # 830 ~ Autumn color # 55
Tuesday, November 23, 2010 at 04:07PM 
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."
Reader Comments (4)
I occasionally make an "abstract" image ... but as you say because the real world referent/s is usually recognisable (e.g a leaf, a reflection in water) I tend to refer to these images as "semi-abstract". But the intent comes into it as well: the picture is not about a thing or an idea but is simply about colour & shape. Which means it might qualify as a "pretty picture"?
BTW, I think there's value in making deliberate attempts at "abstract" images. It forces you to think about light, colour and shape and not about details. Artists probably do this naturally but technically minded photographs less so.
First, a definition for abstract must be agreed on.
Here is what dictionary.com says,
Fine Arts .
a.
of or pertaining to the formal aspect of art, emphasizing lines, colors, generalized or geometrical forms, etc., esp. with reference to their relationship to one another.
b.
( often initial capital letter ) pertaining to the nonrepresentational art styles of the 20th century.
Based on that definition, particularly part a, I would say a photograph could be abstract.
I should add that I am sympathetic to the 'angels on a pin' answer. A friend of mine once warned me about the dangers of debating when that time could be spent practicing.
Fantastic image Mark.
I don't see why a photograph like this can't be classes as abstract. If it was a painting it would have been called abstract. I think that it often takes more skill to take an artistic photograph than to paint it. Well done