Show us some Abstracts!

[John R]

Good ones, Oscar.

Yes, very nice. They don't look like much as thumbnails, but once opened and enlarged, the impact of the graphics is very strong.

JR

[John R]

Back to a little more abstract:

[32BT]

Aquatic Inversion

(And that's just before breakfast!)

[32BT]

Back to a little more abstract:

I'm undecided about these. Also about the blinds shots etc. I"ll try to explain: by abstraction we generally mean a reduction of a concept to bare essentials (so it becomes applicable in a general sense). Obviously, in art one can explore abstraction by exploring this reduction, and clearly this means one can reduce by too much at which point it loses its meaning, or even a meaning. So, from an explorative viewpoint it may be interesting, but it easily may lose interest for the audience.

Does that make sense?

[Rob C]

Aquatic Inversion

(And that's just before breakfast!)

Beautiful!

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Aquatic Inversion

(And that's just before breakfast!)

That's a winner!

[John R]

I'm undecided about these. Also about the blinds shots etc. I"ll try to explain: by abstraction we generally mean a reduction of a concept to bare essentials (so it becomes applicable in a general sense). Obviously, in art one can explore abstraction by exploring this reduction, and clearly this means one can reduce by too much at which point it loses its meaning, or even a meaning. So, from an explorative viewpoint it may be interesting, but it easily may lose interest for the audience.

Does that make sense?

Sure, I agree. However, we have to put our semi-abstract images somewhere. In my experience, in listening to people at galleries, shows and camera clubs, when people can't relate to an abstract image, they really pan it. Not just "I don't like it,", but comments like, what is that, why did they bother, etc. True abstraction has to have something people can relate to, which by that same criteria means, it may not be truly abstract after all.

How about this one shown in this post: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=86369.1680



Doesn't exist in reality. It's a double exposure created by two camera movements and slightly cropped. It looks like someone went wild with a paintbrush. The colours and how they are juxtaposed, and their movement, really appeals to me. It has universal elements, but it does not necessarily have universal appeal.

JR

[Patricia Sheley]

 ~

[BobDavid]

Aquatic Inversion

(And that's just before breakfast!)

+1

I think this qualifies as hyper realistic rather than abstract.

[BobDavid]

Hmmm... small red object(s) 

Stunning, delightful, and elegant. This is something I'd like hanging on a wall.

[32BT]

Doesn't exist in reality. It's a double exposure created by two camera movements and slightly cropped. It looks like someone went wild with a paintbrush. The colours and how they are juxtaposed, and their movement, really appeals to me. It has universal elements, but it does not necessarily have universal appeal.

JR

Yes, or perhaps I'm mistaken with Impressionism, but for me a good abstraction should preserve impressionistic elements. Indeed, it may not appeal to me personally, but I should still be able to recognise some kind of impression that the photographer (or generally, the artist) may have wanted to communicate. I know there is an entire school of thinking that says you should just judge by your own perception, but I do not personally believe communication in any form was meant to be a unilateral experience.

I'm fine with a non-existing composite, since it is similar to a photographer doing flower arrangement. You may see and photograph individual flowers, have a sense that some combination of these makes a good arrangement, and you make a composition with just the impression of the result. This could even serve the additional purpose of removing a sense of imperfection: the individual flowers may have faults, but the impressionistic representation makes that totally irrelevant.

It allows the viewer to concentrate on the impression, not on the detail.

[32BT]

A bit bleak, perhaps, but sign of the times...



Rob

Sorry for bumping this entry but

HOLY BLOODY SH*T, THIS IS BLOODY BRILLIANT!

I wouldn't even call it abstract at all, especially with that subtitle "Sign of the Times"

[LesPalenik]

Anything, but bleak - colorful buildings in Kinsale in southern Ireland

[32BT]

Anything, but bleak - colorful buildings in Kinsale in southern Ireland

Colorful it is, but this i would call impressionistic, not abstract. Additionally you could question the necessity of photography as the medium...

And IF we qualify this as impressionistic, and i don't mean to be overly critical, then what impression is being transferred? How is this different from any other colorful houses in a street? (In the same way that a sunset generally consists of pleasing colors, but how is this particular sunset different from all others?)

Please note: i'm just trying to spice up the discussion, it may well be that this thread is also meant to be non-judgemental, in which case you can ignore my questions.

[32BT]

Constrained darkness

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Constrained darkness

Now, that's abstract! And lovely, in a macabre way. And wall-deserving.

[Rob C]

Constrained darkness

I've just been looking at a set of Bert Stern's Marilyns and yep, this may be "constrained", but I still see breasts. I'm basically an optimist, regardless what people think!

Thanks for the nice words about The Driver - kinda liked that one myself, if I may say so.

;-)

Rob

[BobDavid]

Constrained darkness

This is a "big photo." The larger, the better.

[Bruce Cox]

~

It's good and gritty.  It holds together better than most vertical compositions I see and it seems to be ascending.

Bruce

[Bruce Cox]

Constrained darkness

I didn't want to say anything, but Rob would know.  And the breasts make it difficult for me to see the darkness.

Bruce