One definition ; - (of abstract art)- achieving its effect through color and shapes rather than attempting to represent recognizable reality.
I had a thought about abstract photography, and a few questions too. Actually the thought has as much to do, or more to do with photography in general, the way we attempt to photograph and perhaps perceive other people’s work , here at NPN.
I was wondering if it is possible that , lack of perceived “order” in a photograph is an obstacle
to many of us, in terms of understanding and appreciating another person’s work or even our own . Abstract Art, even by it’s definition above, would seem less so, but even with abstracts,
are we looking for patterns, shapes, things that might be hard to define, but relate some sense of order?
Perhaps examining the literal meaning of the word is in itself an affront to abstraction, but here goes - "abs" originates from latin, meaning to take away (same concept as in "absent" or "abstruse"), while "tract" relates to drawing. In other words - "abstract" literally mean omitting something - taking something away. In this sense perhaps taking away the literal meaning of the objects portrayed in a visual work.
The implication is that once something has been taken away or left out - one needs to fill a void. I like to think of this "filling of the void" in terms of interpretation. Interpretation is inherently subjective so by creating an abstract image you are allowing viewers the liberty to insert their own meaning into it, but at the same time you assume the risk that this meaning will not be what you intended or may even be negative and offensive to some.
So yes - it is an obstacle in the sense that you are relinquishing control of what your viewers take away from the image. For some it may seem deep and meaningful and for others meaningless or offensive. As long as you are aware of this effect you can learn some very ineresting things about your viewers.
Perhaps I'm a control freak myself, but I like to have some say in how my images influence the viewer. To the degree that I allow myself abstraction, I try to include hints and directions to the interpretation I had in mind, whether through a suggestive title or supporting elements/composition. In my mind this is my role as (dare I say) an artist, as opposed to a documentarian or a researcher.
Yes, actually it does make sense to me , clear as mud ( that's a joke ). To be honest, I've never really thought of abstract photography in those terms, very interesting.
I'm sure a few people might be wondering what the heck we're talking about, but I understand your point about objective and subjective presentation.
For example I see a great deal of simularity in your approach and Mr Hobson's, as an example. That might surprise many people, given that your subject mattter and techniques are often quite different, but the intention of leaving something there ( to varying degrees ) for the viewer to discover and realize is something that I see in common. Maybe that is why I enjoy and respect both of you as , I do dare to say it; artists.
However, I'm not there yet. One reason being, my mindset is more bent on relating an idea, my idea, to someone else, through photography. So, as I understand from thinking about your response, I'll never get there following this path, at least in an abstract (photographic )sense, because truth be told, if the viewer comes up with their own idea, independent of my intention, then my "plan" has failed.
Thanks Guy for the thoughtful response, it's made me stop and think. All this time I thought I was the most important part of the photographic equation, you know, given I am the one creating the image. However that is quite simplistic and if I'm being honest, shows quite a bit of disrespect both to the subject and intended viewer. Thanks, Tim
Posted by Eric Fredine on April 16, 2006 at 11:26 PM
I've read that Rothko rejected the idea of trying to attach any meaning to his paintings. He meant for them to be experienced. His abstract work is untitled (although many have been given informal, descriptive titles by others) and he even became reluctant to talk about his work. He said "Silence is so accurate." So I guess that's one perspective.
I think as a tool for creating pure abstracts photography is somewhat limited compared to other tools (such as painting). At the same time, I think the use of abstraction within photography is a powerful tool and that rather than being a 'defined state' (ie. this one is an abstract that other one isn't) it is a continuum (ie. a given photograph can be more or less abstract). And I think in this context what I'm really talking about might be better referred to as ambiguity - the degree to which the actual subject matter and details about it are obvious - or not.
And I think perhaps you and Guy are talking more about visual design than abstraction. In some photographs, the visual design is obvious and structured. In others, it is more subtle, complex or not apparent or perhaps not even present at all.
I think there are various schools of thought on this. One school of thought is that apparent and thoughtfully conceived visual design is essential for a successful photograph - that in fact this is the characteristic that distinguishes the accomplished practitioner from a snapshooter. Another school of thought (at the other end of the spectrum I suppose) holds that an apparent and structured visual design is contrived and artificial -- that it actually detracts from the emotional impact of the photograph. Other variations on the theme suggest that the visual design should be subtle and utilized to support the intent of the photograph and complement the subject matter.
Eric . . . interesting , something I've given alot of thought to, and was hesitant to point out, is that, as the saying goes, there is an elephant in the room here at NPN. That elephant, which nobody seems to want to acknowledge is described in your last paragraph.
Witness the heated discussions that erupt ever so often because of what you describe. You don't have to scratch very hard beneath the surface here to find that discontent between the two groups. But, like that elephant, it is seldom discussed.
Perhaps it is time.
I think I fall into group number three, therefore I'm completely innocent! Tim
Posted by Eric Fredine on April 17, 2006 at 12:16 AM
There are no right answers, no universally correct approaches to visual design and no absolute definitions of what a photograph is supposed to accomplish. There are lots of opinions, considerations and ideas and much that can be learned from discussing, understanding and appreciating a multitude of viewpoints.
Of course, this is problematic in the context of sharing opinions with people. If there are no universal rules against which to evaluate a photograph how can one offer up opinions on whether or not a photograph is 'good', 'great' or 'awful'? So, people tend to evalute against the criteria that matter the most to them - which may or may not even be a complete set. In essence, they mostly tell you how to make photographs like the ones they like or the ones they make themselves.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on April 17, 2006 at 10:13 AM
There are no right answers, no universally correct approaches to visual design and no absolute definitions of what a photograph is supposed to accomplish. There are lots of opinions, considerations and ideas and much that can be learned from discussing, understanding and appreciating a multitude of viewpoints.
I couldn't have said it better myself! It only becomes an "elephant" when the work of others is not treated with respect because it does not fit with the viewer's preconceived notion of what "art" or a good photo should be.
While I don't feel I can add much to the discussion of abstracts as I rarely attempt them, a comment of Guy's got me remembering a communications model I studied back in university: "Perhaps I'm a control freak myself, but I like to have some say in how my images influence the viewer."
As I recall communication is an interaction between the sender and the receiver (in this case the photographer and the viewer) where the final meaning is determined by the viewer. In part the reason for this is that the viewer has a wide variety of experiences and prejudices (not in the pejorative sense) that influence how he/she will interpret any communications. A simplistic example might be if I was bitten by a dog yesterday, the cute photo of a puppy you post today might cause some to have happy memories of puppies they've loved. I, because of my recent experience, may think it's a deceptive portrait of another viscious animal about to be turned loose on society. As we photographers have no control over who views our images and no idea of what attitudes and experiences those viewers have with our subject matter, our control over how our work influences another is very difficult to predict.
As abstracts are a step further from the literal interpretation of the world we see around us viewer reaction seems to me to be uncontrollable. I'm sure we've all been at public shows of photography where people have had a complete spectrum of reactions to a particular work, from strongly emotional to complete indifference. Abstracts by their very nature eliminate a lot of the normal visual cues we are used to. Some viewers will try to superimpose a structure (like compositional rules) to make it more meaningful to them, while others will respond viscerally. Some artists use titles as a way of directing the viewer, others never use them. A third group will think "my two year old could do better than this".
I think Eric said it best:
"There are no right answers, no universally correct approaches to visual design and no absolute definitions of what a photograph is supposed to accomplish. There are lots of opinions, considerations and ideas and much that can be learned from discussing, understanding and appreciating a multitude of viewpoints."
...even with abstracts, are we looking for patterns, shapes, things that might be hard to define, but relate some sense of order?
Tim, as you know, look around and see that nature abounds with abstracts. Some abstracts can be created artificially such as by zooming in or out while photographing, or by PhotoShopping the photo. I absolutely look for patterns, and shapes in abstracts. I made some attempts at abstracts while in Jasper recently; I saw patterns and shapes that intrigued me. Abstracts do not have to be of unrecognizable things. I have seen amazing abstracts in sand or snow. And in rocks, as well as trees. Because emphasis is given to the patterns and shapes caused by wind, texture, and light, I consider these to be abstracts. Colors emphasized in abstracts can often defy a definite pattern. Abstracts of that kind are bold and it is in that they have their appeal.
That is mine interpretation of an abstract image. Others might be different. I keep an open mind when I view images of this kind (or any other kind of nature image).
Discussion
8 repliesOne definition ; - (of abstract art)- achieving its effect through color and shapes rather than attempting to represent recognizable reality.
I had a thought about abstract photography, and a few questions too. Actually the thought has as much to do, or more to do with photography in general, the way we attempt to photograph and perhaps perceive other people’s work , here at NPN.
I was wondering if it is possible that , lack of perceived “order” in a photograph is an obstacle
to many of us, in terms of understanding and appreciating another person’s work or even our own . Abstract Art, even by it’s definition above, would seem less so, but even with abstracts,
are we looking for patterns, shapes, things that might be hard to define, but relate some sense of order?
The implication is that once something has been taken away or left out - one needs to fill a void. I like to think of this "filling of the void" in terms of interpretation. Interpretation is inherently subjective so by creating an abstract image you are allowing viewers the liberty to insert their own meaning into it, but at the same time you assume the risk that this meaning will not be what you intended or may even be negative and offensive to some.
So yes - it is an obstacle in the sense that you are relinquishing control of what your viewers take away from the image. For some it may seem deep and meaningful and for others meaningless or offensive. As long as you are aware of this effect you can learn some very ineresting things about your viewers.
Perhaps I'm a control freak myself, but I like to have some say in how my images influence the viewer. To the degree that I allow myself abstraction, I try to include hints and directions to the interpretation I had in mind, whether through a suggestive title or supporting elements/composition. In my mind this is my role as (dare I say) an artist, as opposed to a documentarian or a researcher.
Did this make any sense at all?
Guy
Yes, actually it does make sense to me , clear as mud ( that's a joke
I'm sure a few people might be wondering what the heck we're talking about, but I understand your point about objective and subjective presentation.
For example I see a great deal of simularity in your approach and Mr Hobson's, as an example. That might surprise many people, given that your subject mattter and techniques are often quite different, but the intention of leaving something there ( to varying degrees ) for the viewer to discover and realize is something that I see in common. Maybe that is why I enjoy and respect both of you as , I do dare to say it; artists.
However, I'm not there yet. One reason being, my mindset is more bent on relating an idea, my idea, to someone else, through photography. So, as I understand from thinking about your response, I'll never get there following this path, at least in an abstract (photographic )sense, because truth be told, if the viewer comes up with their own idea, independent of my intention, then my "plan" has failed.
Thanks Guy for the thoughtful response, it's made me stop and think. All this time I thought I was the most important part of the photographic equation, you know, given I am the one creating the image. However that is quite simplistic and if I'm being honest, shows quite a bit of disrespect both to the subject and intended viewer. Thanks, Tim
I think as a tool for creating pure abstracts photography is somewhat limited compared to other tools (such as painting). At the same time, I think the use of abstraction within photography is a powerful tool and that rather than being a 'defined state' (ie. this one is an abstract that other one isn't) it is a continuum (ie. a given photograph can be more or less abstract). And I think in this context what I'm really talking about might be better referred to as ambiguity - the degree to which the actual subject matter and details about it are obvious - or not.
And I think perhaps you and Guy are talking more about visual design than abstraction. In some photographs, the visual design is obvious and structured. In others, it is more subtle, complex or not apparent or perhaps not even present at all.
I think there are various schools of thought on this. One school of thought is that apparent and thoughtfully conceived visual design is essential for a successful photograph - that in fact this is the characteristic that distinguishes the accomplished practitioner from a snapshooter. Another school of thought (at the other end of the spectrum I suppose) holds that an apparent and structured visual design is contrived and artificial -- that it actually detracts from the emotional impact of the photograph. Other variations on the theme suggest that the visual design should be subtle and utilized to support the intent of the photograph and complement the subject matter.
Cheers,
Eric
Witness the heated discussions that erupt ever so often because of what you describe. You don't have to scratch very hard beneath the surface here to find that discontent between the two groups. But, like that elephant, it is seldom discussed.
Perhaps it is time.
I think I fall into group number three, therefore I'm completely innocent!
Of course, this is problematic in the context of sharing opinions with people. If there are no universal rules against which to evaluate a photograph how can one offer up opinions on whether or not a photograph is 'good', 'great' or 'awful'? So, people tend to evalute against the criteria that matter the most to them - which may or may not even be a complete set. In essence, they mostly tell you how to make photographs like the ones they like or the ones they make themselves.
I couldn't have said it better myself! It only becomes an "elephant" when the work of others is not treated with respect because it does not fit with the viewer's preconceived notion of what "art" or a good photo should be.
As I recall communication is an interaction between the sender and the receiver (in this case the photographer and the viewer) where the final meaning is determined by the viewer. In part the reason for this is that the viewer has a wide variety of experiences and prejudices (not in the pejorative sense) that influence how he/she will interpret any communications. A simplistic example might be if I was bitten by a dog yesterday, the cute photo of a puppy you post today might cause some to have happy memories of puppies they've loved. I, because of my recent experience, may think it's a deceptive portrait of another viscious animal about to be turned loose on society. As we photographers have no control over who views our images and no idea of what attitudes and experiences those viewers have with our subject matter, our control over how our work influences another is very difficult to predict.
As abstracts are a step further from the literal interpretation of the world we see around us viewer reaction seems to me to be uncontrollable. I'm sure we've all been at public shows of photography where people have had a complete spectrum of reactions to a particular work, from strongly emotional to complete indifference. Abstracts by their very nature eliminate a lot of the normal visual cues we are used to. Some viewers will try to superimpose a structure (like compositional rules) to make it more meaningful to them, while others will respond viscerally. Some artists use titles as a way of directing the viewer, others never use them. A third group will think "my two year old could do better than this".
I think Eric said it best:
"There are no right answers, no universally correct approaches to visual design and no absolute definitions of what a photograph is supposed to accomplish. There are lots of opinions, considerations and ideas and much that can be learned from discussing, understanding and appreciating a multitude of viewpoints."
Tim, as you know, look around and see that nature abounds with abstracts. Some abstracts can be created artificially such as by zooming in or out while photographing, or by PhotoShopping the photo. I absolutely look for patterns, and shapes in abstracts. I made some attempts at abstracts while in Jasper recently; I saw patterns and shapes that intrigued me. Abstracts do not have to be of unrecognizable things. I have seen amazing abstracts in sand or snow. And in rocks, as well as trees. Because emphasis is given to the patterns and shapes caused by wind, texture, and light, I consider these to be abstracts. Colors emphasized in abstracts can often defy a definite pattern. Abstracts of that kind are bold and it is in that they have their appeal.
That is mine interpretation of an abstract image. Others might be different. I keep an open mind when I view images of this kind (or any other kind of nature image).
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada