What is abstract photography?

Official definition of abstract arts goes (according Wikipedia) somehow this like: "Abstract art uses a visual language of form, color and line to create a composition which exists independently of visual references to the world."

But what is your own opinion and definition for abstract photography? It would be interesting to hear...so just write it here! Please :)

Ari

Views: 1335

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dukes - Dieuwke Swain on November 2, 2008 at 2:00pm
I've been looking into some definitions of abstract and have come across the following:

Abstract:
- Adjective /abstrakt/ 1 theoretical rather than physical or concrete. 2 (of art) achieving its effect through colour and shapes rather than attempting to represent recognizable reality.

Abstract Realism:
- Art that uses real images as the starting point for abstract art. The image should still be somewhat recognisable, yet still be abstract.
- Urban and rural landscapes - mostly realistic in their interpetation by the artists, but also often abstract and sometimes unworldly in their impact on the viewer.

Abstract Expressionism:
- An American post–World War II art movement - The term is applied to any number of artists working (mostly) in New York who had quite different styles, and even applied to work which is not especially abstract nor expressionist.
- A development of abstract art aiming at subjective emotional expression with particular emphasis on spontaneous creativity (e.g. action painting).
- An important predecessor is surrealism.
- No identifiable subject matter.
- Non geometric.
- A painting movement in which artists typically applied paint rapidly, and with force to their huge canvases in an effort to show feelings and emotions, painting gesturally, non-geometrically, sometimes applying paint with large brushes, sometimes dripping or even throwing it onto canvas. Their work is characterized by a strong dependence on what appears to be accident and chance, but which is actually highly planned. Some Abstract Expressionist artists were concerned with adopting a peaceful and mystical approach to a purely abstract image. Usually there was no effort to represent subject matter. Not all work was abstract, nor was all work expressive, but it was generally believed that the spontaneity of the artists' approach to their work would draw from and release the creativity of their unconscious minds. The expressive method of painting was often considered as important as the painting itself.
- Aaron Siskind (1903-1991) is an example of an Abstract Expressionism photographer: His photographs eliminated the illusion of three-dimensional space. He produced abstract images of common flat, non-geometric objects that had been ignored by conventional photographers. His subject matter included peeling paint, drips of tar, graffiti, seaweed, torn posters, old doorways, and “found art,” all sorts of discarded objects that he encountered on his walks.

So I guess the question would be, how strict do we want to be with sticking to just the definition of Abstract? Do we want to include the Abstract Realism & Abstract Expressionism?

Looking at the discussion so far and the kind of work posted on this site, then I would say that including Abstract Realism & Abstract Expressionism enables the memebers to have freedom to fully express themselves.

My suggestion is that the home page should explain more about this site and what we are trying to achieve. So, explaining that this is a website for amateur & professional photographers to share their abstract photographic artwork, share tips and tricks, give and receive criticism etc. And this could then include the guidelines regarding what is considered to be acceptable and what is not acceptable (as Ari mentioned before).
I think showing examples is not necessary if the description is there. also, we don't want to limit people in their creative processes, which giving example images may do.

Let me know what you think.

Cheers, Dieuwke (Dukes)
Permalink Reply by shula steiner on November 8, 2008 at 9:34pm
I agree with Dukedefinition and explanations,
I am an amateur photographer, and most of my photography life was looking and trying to catch the natural abstract forms, mostly by focusing on small scale phenomena of lines, colors, shades.
Only lately discovered the possibility of manipulation, and I like to play with it on a small scale,as I mentioned on my page, I love to recognize the subject on the photo - so it's more realistic sort of abstraction, manly play with hues on forms. But still - having the ability to see abstraction in nature appeals to me more.
Permalink Reply by Dukes - Dieuwke Swain on November 16, 2008 at 11:09pm
Are guidelines enough, do you think?
There are a number of photo's on this site that aren't abtract by any definition. One member has recently added a lot of photo's of people; it looks to me like a political parade - not exactly the right forum for this.
What do we do in these kinds of cases? Do we 'advise' those that place blatantly non-abstract photo's to post their art elsewhere?
I guess this is the nature of the internet - everone can join and has the freedom to do what they like. Obviously both an advantage and disadvantage.
I raise this because I wonder if it is the responsibility of all members to keep the integrity of the site and to ensure that it's used in the way intended. Or would you say that you, Ari, being the initiater of this site would be the best person to act in a 'controling' capacity on this site?
Permalink Reply by Steff on December 6, 2008 at 3:52pm
Sounds OPRESSIVE. I don't mean that in a bad way per say, just not restrictions most artists like dictated to them.
Permalink Reply by Cloo on December 14, 2008 at 3:44am
In my opinion certainly NO family pictures....

ciao
Cloo
Permalink Reply by nancy on December 29, 2008 at 7:36pm
poetry promoted by Basho haiku in the same simple, containing all, is a fraction of the universe is like holograms that continues to break its entirety, whereas the essence of past, present, future, in the instant action embodied in that instant.
abstract art is a reflection of our culture, this state of life and minimal part of our being.
Permalink Reply by phil on April 30, 2009 at 11:38am
Hi all, upon reading this thread regarding abstract photography i had to join the site to reply)

I was a little worried about all the NO,s that seem to be listed regarding abstract photography.I am glad Ernst Haas never adhered to that list.Remember Art is limit less and rules do not apply even the rule of thirds leaves the artist a little restricted at times.
Permalink Reply by Ari Rapo on April 30, 2009 at 12:42pm
You are absolutely right Phil! When you look at our images you can realize that actually there are not so many NO's at all. But this thinking and writing and discussing about the essence of abstract photography is very important.
We are glad you join us! :)

best regards Ari

phil said:
Hi all, upon reading this thread regarding abstract photography i had to join the site to reply)

I was a little worried about all the NO,s that seem to be listed regarding abstract photography.I am glad Ernst Haas never adhered to that list.Remember Art is limit less and rules do not apply even the rule of thirds leaves the artist a little restricted at times.
Permalink Reply by Ari Rapo on May 3, 2009 at 1:14pm
The first successfull permanent photograph gives us a reflection of the abstract nature of photography:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:View_from_the_Window_at_Le_Gras,_...

;)
Permalink Reply by Kathleen Dallara Pennell on May 23, 2009 at 5:51am
Embrace creativity.
I say anything goes... as long as you start with a photo.

Today 2009 with digital photography you need to bend to realize software is just another tool for the artist. The rules need to float away peacefully to avoid stagnation and allow us to propel into the newness.
Permalink Reply by Sebastian Burckhardt on September 23, 2009 at 4:49pm
when illustrative descripition resceeds and the visual experience starts to dominate - verbaly given explanations are than less valid, because the visual formal language has its proper rules............
Permalink Reply by tbo on November 4, 2009 at 9:16pm
I'm not quite sure about the rule "no photos of abstract art". OK, if it means "no repro shots of abstract art", then maybe I can live with it, but at least in my own work I've come to see the photos I've taken of my abstract works as completely separate pieces of art. The other is a video projection, oil slide or a tie-dyed piece of fabric or whatever, the other is a photograph. To me the difference is clear. And that's part of the tension of the image: a photograph is at least supposed to be, well, a photograph-sharp reproduction of what ever there happens to be in front of the lens, but what happens when the result is something one can't describe in terms of the every-day world? I'd point the reader to my own work: what do you see? Do you see a photograph, or abstract fields of color and shape?

the answer is like the zen koan: both, and neither. Because in the end, the eye is not the organ where the art is.

RSS

© 2012   Created by Ari Rapo.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service