Daily Walk

[RSL]

Fair enough, Keith, and those are the ones John does that I like best. And I didn't compliment John on his May 31st trees. Should have. That's one I do like. So here's "bravo," John.

[John R]

You're right, Keith. That's true of all sorts of things. Interesting, though, that some photographs, poems, musical compositions, paintings, etc., appeal to huge numbers of people while others go thud. I find some of John's work very interesting, but at heart I believe an abstract image has to come from a paintbrush. A camera's far too objective, even when you wave it around during the exposure. All that does is show that you waved the camera around during exposure -- not exactly an abstract idea -- or result.

I agree Russ. But images that are non-representational but still identifiable, have to be called something. They may not be abstract in the traditional art sense, but I think they are still akin to being abstract. I would not consider most of my ICM images as abstracts but have to place them somewhere. They are certainly not realistic. It is very difficult to take "abstract" images that meet the traditional definition and still be good enough to interest people. And Russ, please don't stop critiquing even if you don't like my images. It is always interesting and sometimes enlightening to learn why people may like, or not like your images. Again thanks for the interest and comments.

What are these? Identifiable yes; but still abstract?

[RSL]

Well, I like both of these, John. And you're right. Neither is abstract.

[John R]

True enough, Russ, but I particularly liked the image, in part at least because it wasn't obviously a result of waving the camera around during the exposure.

Thanks Keith. I only wave the camera around when experimenting. When I want a certain look or think a subject may be worth experimenting on, I employ my experience to bring out the result I want. In most cases you really need to know what you are doing.

JR

Or you can get lucky, as in luck favours those who are prepared and try anyway.

[John R]

Playful.

JR

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Nice irises.

[John R]

Nice irises.

Thanks Eric. I think the irises need company.

JR

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I can't identify those, so does that make it a true abstract?

[John R]

I can't identify those, so does that make it a true abstract?

In that case, let me continue the ambiguity.

JR

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Got it: Luminous Doughnuts!

[John R]

We can't have trees making and promoting doughnuts in public parks. Very bad diet. So lets walk it all off. In style, of course.

JR



And you can turn back once you reach the haunted part of the forest.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Nice ghosts.

[RSL]

+1

[Chris Kern]

. . . at heart I believe an abstract image has to come from a paintbrush. A camera's far too objective . . .

But images that are non-representational but still identifiable, have to be called something. They may not be abstract in the traditional art sense, but I think they are still akin to being abstract.

I think abstraction in photography must be thought of as having a different meaning than abstraction in painting for precisely the reason Russ Lewis states: a camera is an inherently literal tool for representing the world.  For me, to refer to an "abstract photograph" involves using abstract in the sense of the word that means summarizing something or extracting the essential part of it.  An abstract painting is unconstrained only by the artist's imagination and the fundamental properties of a two-dimensional space* while an abstract photograph, absent massive manipulation in post-processing, represents an attempt by the photographer to depict a real-world subject that actually appeared in front of the camera in a novel, not-entirely-literal way.

―――
*Of course, some painting media at least partially escape the boundaries of two dimensions: e.g., heavily-textured oil pigments.

[John R]

I think abstraction in photography must be thought of as having a different meaning than abstraction in painting for precisely the reason Russ Lewis states: a camera is an inherently literal tool for representing the world.  For me, to refer to an "abstract photograph" involves using abstract in the sense of the word that means summarizing something or extracting the essential part of it.  An abstract painting is unconstrained only by the artist's imagination and the fundamental properties of a two-dimensional space* while an abstract photograph, absent massive manipulation in post-processing, represents an attempt by the photographer to depict a real-world subject that actually appeared in front of the camera in a novel, not-entirely-literal way.

―――
*Of course, some painting media at least partially escape the boundaries of two dimensions: e.g., heavily-textured oil pigments.

Thanks for the input Chris. I would like to point out, that although I agree with you and Russ, if you look all over the internet, "abstracts" is what most people are calling non-representational imagery. Many sites have a gallery called 'abstracts.' There are many abstract photography competitions. So you may win the definition battle, but the use of the term abstract for non-representational, non-literal imagery, is now ubiquitous in photographic circles.

[John R]

Same tree. Two different renditions.

JR

[Chris Kern]

Same tree. Two different renditions.

Both of these are very well-done, and "abstract" in precisely the way I define abstract photography: "an attempt by the photographer to depict a real-world subject that actually appeared in front of the camera in a novel, not-entirely-literal way."

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Both tree images are lovely abstracts to me. I think of "abstract" as a summary, focused narrowly on some "essence" of the subject, and photography does that very well. In-camera acrobatics like John's as well as post processing generally tries to emphasize some essence of the original scene (light, texture, form, etc.)

[RSL]

I think abstraction in photography must be thought of as having a different meaning than abstraction in painting for precisely the reason Russ Lewis states: a camera is an inherently literal tool for representing the world.  For me, to refer to an "abstract photograph" involves using abstract in the sense of the word that means summarizing something or extracting the essential part of it.  An abstract painting is unconstrained only by the artist's imagination and the fundamental properties of a two-dimensional space* while an abstract photograph, absent massive manipulation in post-processing, represents an attempt by the photographer to depict a real-world subject that actually appeared in front of the camera in a novel, not-entirely-literal way.

Well said, Chris. And I agree that John's last two images fit the description.

[John R]

Thanks for the comments, Chris, Russ and Eric. One thing I like is that these discussions explain things in concentrated ways, so that people get a good sense of what abstracts are in photography.

JR