Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ari Rapo on November 4, 2009 at 10:01pm

That sentence "no photos of abstract art" was not actually exact citation of our 'rules', it was from this discussion. However, photographic expression is the matter we are researching to. I am very interested to spread borders of concept 'abstract photoraphic expression'. I somehow understand that it is our mission here. But it is big enough piece of cake to understand solely photography than all kind of art forms. I think limiting natural art forms (paintings, watercolor works, handcraft, sculpture etc) from this photographic forum just makes it more understandable and sterling for our audience.

Official rules are here: http://www.abstractphoto.info/page/site-info

Thanks for nice discussion opening! :)

regards Ari

tbo said:

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kathleen Dallara Pennell on December 24, 2009 at 7:08am

Abstracted beyond recognition?
Nah, starts as a photo but does not look "photo realistic" maybe super realistic but is open to creative experiment:-) What is ...independent of visual references to the world??? I like an inclusive art group without ridged rules. I do like some structure to be followed and applied fairly. Good leadership with clear rules help.
How am I doing? lol

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by robert preston dickinson on March 6, 2010 at 2:57am

I have encountered what I consider to be discrimination within the photographic art community against abstract photographs produced with an element of digital manipulation, such works being denigrated as having been "Photoshopped." To me if the photographer has used the tools of photography - camera, lens, and Photoshop (generically - the present day darkroom), and the image is still recognizable as having been initiated via the camera, it is a photograph. If the viewer says "Is that a watercolor?" I have failed - it may be art, but it is not a photograph. It is abstract if it presents a view that is beyond what the viewer would typically see when looking at the original subject of the photograph. Contrast this with photojournalism which seeks to present the subject exactly as it would be perceived by the viewer standing in the photographer's shoes. This concept leaves room for a wide range of images, which is why I have come here - I would like for the photographic community to embrace this range.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page