# Abstract/semi-abstract photography and you



## invisible (Sep 12, 2008)

What place do abstracts/semi-abstracts have in your photography? Do you shoot them often? Why do you think abstract/semi-abstract photography is not very popular?


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 12, 2008)

I think one of the best abstract photographers here is Chiller.  I like allot of his stuff. I stab at it sometimes.

Like the last shot in this series: http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=137220


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 12, 2008)

I take them way too seldom, think I should challenge myself a lot more to take photos of the kind, and really like them, mostly so if they are very "simple" in their composition (few elements only). I like to look at those taken by others, like yours, Federico!


----------



## paranoidandroid13 (Sep 12, 2008)

I try to take abstract pictures as much as I can.  When it seems like every other picture in the world has been taken, abstract photos stand out.  It is my opinion that no two abstract photos (or any piece of abstract art) can ever be duplicated exactly.  For me, it is very freeing to be able to create something completely unique to me.  Not that taking a "non-abstract" photo is not unique, but there is just something liberating about breaking the traditional rules of photography and creating something unique... Anyone else feel the same?


----------



## abraxas (Sep 12, 2008)

invisible said:


> What place do abstracts/semi-abstracts have in your photography? Do you shoot them often? Why do you think abstract/semi-abstract photography is not very popular?



I prefer abstracts/alternatives over traditional/conventional.

I think that, if done effectively, it takes people where they do not want to go or understand.


----------



## invisible (Sep 13, 2008)

LaFoto said:


> I like to look at those taken by others, like yours, Federico!


LOL, I think I only have a grand total of five or six semi-abstract keepers under my belt!

I hear what you guys are saying, but... why do people not create  more abstract/semi-abstract stuff with their cameras? For instance, if a new sub-forum for abstract photography were created here, we would likely get just a handful of threads per month. 

In my (limited) personal experience, I think  shooting abstract has helped me enormously with composition. When you shoot abstract you're basically framing  raw lines and shapes; you get to experiment with the rule of thirds and such, pushing it to the extreme or breaking it. In turn, your brain becomes used to frame everything in terms of lines and shapes (not objects), whether you're shooting a landscape, a portrait, a flower in macro, etc. (Again, this is just my personal experience.)

I've also found that abstract is the way to go when you visit a place that doesn't live up to your expectations in terms of of "shootable" subjects. Dull places force you to be creative and find things to shoot where there's nothing "obvious" to shoot.


----------



## abraxas (Sep 15, 2008)

I think most photographers want to stick with what is conventional because it is conventional- the accepted norm.  I've become more interested in alternatives and expression because convention has become increasingly boring to me--in my case landscapes.  I still enjoy shooting them, and even enjoy looking at others work, but, I believe I'm becoming jaded by various levels of mediocrity- There are countless photographers that produce high quality work.  So many in fact, that looking at this work becomes numbing, and I begin to wonder what it's all about?  Sometimes there just doesn't seem to be any difference.

I suppose I still like to pull a pretty landscape off when I can.  I'm sure I'll keep trying to get better also.  If I become proficient, I'll probably feel I've just reached a different level of more of the same.  Sometimes I think that the only way to go, the only way to produce something unique to me is to express things I feel and imagine I see that are fleeting and variable.  To try to evoke that in others that are willing to let that into themselves and possibly identify what an image does inside of them.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 15, 2008)

abraxas said:


> I think most photographers want to stick with what is conventional...



I want do more abstract stuff but it more often then not calls for contrivance, forethought, and what boils down to allot of work. Thus it's not copacetic with my usual spontaneous style. I wonder too how many others (hobbyists at least) feel the same.


----------



## Mike_E (Sep 15, 2008)

And a big 10 points to Bifurcator for the gratuitous use of the word "Copacetic"!


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 15, 2008)

hehe...

When I was ~16 I used to use copacetic and bodacious in just about every sentence.  I'm ancient... what can I say.


----------



## Peter_pan91 (Sep 16, 2008)

If done well it can be truly amazing, if done well..


----------



## Brian Austin (Sep 16, 2008)

I don't really get into abstracts at all.  Admittedly, I'm more conventional in that respect.  I prefer Van Gogh and Rembrandt over Picasso.

I use photography to tell a story or take viewers where they haven't gone.  Landscapes, artistic/fine art nudes, captures of candid private moments, etc., all transport people to places they dream about.  Abstracts don't really do that, imo.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 16, 2008)

I think a good abstract does that in a deeper more profound way.  But it relies more on the person's intellect and their mind's eye than on the visual communication medium.  For me the abstract impresses those "dream about places I'm never been to" in a more permanent and natural way. I remember the feelings and dreams they leave me with (probably because they are actually my own) for a much longer time. Like of all the 1000's of Images I've viewed since being here I can call up a visual remembrance of the more abstract ones but almost can't recall at all the "very realistic conventional" ones. 

Anyway, that's how I work...   Hehehe "The Bifurcator Machine".


----------



## Brian Austin (Sep 16, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Like of all the 1000's of Images I've viewed since being here I can call up a visual remembrance of the more abstract ones but almost can't recall at all the "very realistic conventional" ones.


 
So it's down to personal perception...because I can't recall a single abstract but could sketch out many of my favorite "conventional" viewed images.


----------



## photographyaddict (Sep 19, 2008)

i do them all the time but for personal pleasure. not everybody 'gets' it so it doesn't get sold.


----------



## Mike_E (Sep 19, 2008)

invisible said:


> What place do abstracts/semi-abstracts have in your photography? Do you shoot them often? _*Why do you think abstract/semi-abstract photography is not very popular?*_



It seems to me that abstract art is an act of subliminal communication.

For communication to work well both the speaker and the listener (photographer/observer in this case) need to have an agreed upon set of conventions.  You could call this a common language if you like.

Someone who engages in the abstract arts tends to have a much larger vocabulary than some one who only occasionally comes into contact with the abstract.  So, it often boils down to one side saying a lot more than the other side can understand and then the other side gets bored and walks away with out buying the work- both figuratively and literally.

Hertz Van- has brought this up a number of times.  If he isn't tired of the  whole thing, you might get his views.  If you can find him that is.  :/


----------



## invisible (Sep 23, 2008)

Mike_E said:


> It seems to me that abstract art is an act of subliminal communication.
> 
> For communication to work well both the speaker and the listener (photographer/observer in this case) need to have an agreed upon set of conventions. You could call this a common language if you like.



For communication to be subliminal, the recipient of the message should not be aware that the sender is communicating something, yet the message gets through regardless. 



Mike_E said:


> Someone who engages in the abstract arts tends to have a much larger vocabulary than some one who only occasionally comes into contact with the abstract. So, it often boils down to one side saying a lot more than the other side can understand and then the other side gets bored and walks away with out buying the work- both figuratively and literally.



I assume you're assuming that every photography (abstract or otherwise) has a specific, coded message to convey. I don't agree with that premise. Some photographers probably use their photos as a vehicle to communicate ideas, while some others just don't.

Abstract photography (hell, photography in general) doesn't have to be obtuse, mysterious, or highly coded to be good.


----------



## Crazydad (Sep 24, 2008)

invisible said:


> I assume you're assuming that every photography (abstract or otherwise) has a specific, coded message to convey. I don't agree with that premise. Some photographers probably use their photos as a vehicle to communicate ideas, while some others just don't.


 
I couldn't agree more.

While I am by no means an art expert and am still new to photography, I do appreciate art in all it's forms. Especially work that makes me think and/or feel. But does a piece of art (photgraph, painting, sculpture, etc.) have to convey some message to be considered good? What if they asked a photographer (or painter, sculptor, etc.) what his/her piece is saying and they just say, "Nothing really, I just thought it looked cool." Would it be considered as good art? I think most people, especially ones who consider themselves connoisseurs of fine art, will often infuse a meaning the artist never intended.

It reminds me of "Back to School" with Rodney Dangerfield when his character had to write a paper about Kurt Vonnegut's books, so he had Kurt write the paper. And the professor (Sally Kellerman) told him who ever wrote the paper didn't know the first thing about Kurt Vonnegut.


----------



## Mike_E (Sep 24, 2008)

Sorry, I thought we were talking about art rather than graphic design.

For something to be art it has to communicate something- even if it's the warm fuzzies.

Sub (def-{ http://www.answers.com/topic/sub-prefix }) = below, underneath.

Liminal   ( http://www.answers.com/liminal )   sensory threshold.

Just because the viewer can't consciously detect a message doesn't mean that there isn't one there.  

I have in the past defended snap-shooters here and caught a bit of flack over it.  But i have never made the mistake of thinking that a photo taken without forethought is anything but a snap-shot. 

I still think that there is a place and time for snap-shots but if some one is going to start slapping "High and Mighty" terms to a photograph then they have a responsibility to the craft to at least make the effort to fulfill the requirements of whatever they are making claim to have created.


----------



## invisible (Sep 24, 2008)

Mike_E said:


> Sorry, I thought we were talking about art rather than graphic design.


This is so derogatory and presumptuous that I won't even bother to reply. (It's also the second time in just a month that someone here dismisses a whole profession. Way to go!)


----------



## Mike_E (Sep 24, 2008)

Graphic design is a fine profession but this is a photography forum.


----------



## abraxas (Sep 25, 2008)

invisible said:


> ...
> Abstract photography (hell, photography in general) doesn't have to be obtuse, mysterious, or highly coded to be good.



Photography is a branch of graphic design.

There are no rules. The image can portray anything the artist wants it to, or not.

If you like what you do, and do what you like, then pursue your interpretations without regard of others. Not much more to it than that.


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 25, 2008)

Brian Austin said:


> So it's down to personal perception...because I can't recall a single abstract but could sketch out many of my favorite "conventional" viewed images.



Hey, I can recall both 

Maybe I should post more of my abstracts on here ... after I flooded the forum with conventional landscapes


----------



## Alpha (Sep 25, 2008)

I just did a 5-shot series on expired polaroid t59. Radically different from the rest of my work. Love it. Who cares about popular.


----------



## Mike_E (Sep 25, 2008)

And I'll bet $50 of your money that you thought about what you were going to shoot before you pressed the shutter button.


----------



## Alpha (Sep 25, 2008)

Try $5. 5 sheets. Open box, expired. Do you take me for a fool?


----------



## Mike_E (Sep 26, 2008)

You mean if you use your own money to bet against me?

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## abraxas (Sep 26, 2008)

Crazydad said:


> ...
> 
> ... Especially work that makes me think and/or feel. But does a piece of art (photgraph, painting, sculpture, etc.) have to convey some message to be considered good? What if they asked a photographer (or painter, sculptor, etc.) what his/her piece is saying and they just say, "Nothing really, I just thought it looked cool." Would it be considered as good art? I think most people, especially ones who consider themselves connoisseurs of fine art, will often infuse a meaning the artist never intended.
> 
> ...



I think sometimes the new meaning could better relate what the artist may have felt. I enjoy hearing interpretations of my work before I define what it was I feel I was attempting to say with the image. Although it's satisfying to hear that I've successfully expressed what I wanted to say, it can be far more interesting to hear another's intelligent interpretation, or, peer into the dysfunctional psyche of the nonproductive and intentionally ignorant.


----------



## invisible (Sep 26, 2008)

Mike_E said:


> And I'll bet $50 of your money that you thought about what you were going to shoot before you pressed the shutter button.


Let's say we have one subject and two photographers A and B. Photographer A puts a lot of thought and time in planning his shot; photographer B, on the other hand, sees the subject for the first time while walking by, then grabs his camera. Both photographers take their pictures, and the resulting photos are strikingly similar.

Is photo A better than photo B? (You know, because of the fore thinking and the fact that photographer A had something to say through his image while the other guy was obviously just a snapshooter.)


----------



## JC1220 (Sep 26, 2008)

invisible said:


> Let's say we have one subject and two photographers A and B. Photographer A puts a lot of thought and time in planning his shot; photographer B, on the other hand, sees the subject for the first time while walking by, then grabs his camera. Both photographers take their pictures, and the resulting photos are strikingly similar.
> 
> Is photo A better than photo B? (You know, because of the fore thinking and the fact that photographer A had something to say through his image while the other guy was obviously just a snapshooter.)


 
On a commercial project, A, will most likely be more successful than B.  In this situation it is about communicating an idea, object or specific message most likely accompanied by text, etc.

If we are talking about art, all things being equal between them, photographer B will create a photograph with more lasting meaning.  Visual arts are about feelings, discovery and the artist interaction, not the self centered action of communicating an idea or the wanting to be understood through ones photographs or the forcing of your perceptions on the viewer.  Work created in this manor will be nothing more than a clever cliché that will never last.

The creation of fine art, a photograph, should certainly be informed by intelligence, but it is not lead by a specific thought process; it is always by feel and intuition and never analytical.


----------



## Alpha (Sep 26, 2008)

JC1220 said:


> The creation of fine art, a photograph, should certainly be informed by intelligence, but it is not lead by a specific thought process; it is always by feel and intuition and never analytical.



I partly disagree. That bars the kind of series I just shot from being considered fine art. I don't say that to toot my fine art horn, but as a matter of principle. Does it really detract from the creative process that I couldn't have predicted how the shots would turn out? We film photographers are in the habit of occasionally committing ourselves to processes with unpredictable outcomes. I think cross-procesing or even shooting with very expired films qualifies, even if the results aren't as extreme as the series I just did. When push comes to shove, the series I just did was far more a function of uneven development and neg sticking to pos than it was a matter of compositional forethought. However, that doesn't make it a less creative process. It's possible that anyone else who had exposed those five pieces of film would have ended up with an outcome very very similar to mine. But the point is that they didn't. I did. I pulled the slide, tripped the shutter, passed the sheets through the rollers, and pulled the packet apart. That makes the images my creation, and my art.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 26, 2008)

Alpha said:


> I partly disagree. That bars the kind of series I just shot from being considered fine art. I don't say that to toot my fine art horn, but as a matter of principle. Does it really detract from the creative process that I couldn't have predicted how the shots would turn out? *We film photographers are in the habit of occasionally committing ourselves to processes with unpredictable outcomes.* I think cross-procesing or even shooting with very expired films qualifies, even if the results aren't as extreme as the series I just did. When push comes to shove, the series I just did was far more a function of uneven development and neg sticking to pos than it was a matter of compositional forethought. However, that doesn't make it a less creative process. It's possible that anyone else who had exposed those five pieces of film would have ended up with an outcome very very similar to mine. But the point is that they didn't. I did. I pulled the slide, tripped the shutter, passed the sheets through the rollers, and pulled the packet apart. That makes the images my creation, and my art.



Are they beating you up?  I'm on your side here. All photography is unpredictable to some degree. There so much guess-work involved in every shot I'm amazed that I'm able to predict much at all. And let's be clear that a prediction no matter how educated, is not the same thing as knowing or having foreknowledge. With digital an EVF or a DOF preview can assist but it's still a far cry from WYSIWYG-like knowing.

This unknown mysterious factor doesn't make it any less artful than splatter art or even sketching and painting really. It shifts to a more spontaneous and intuitive or even semi-precognitive, process than a "creative" one by this definition however.


----------



## Alpha (Sep 26, 2008)

Well, I'd say any quasi-experimental shooting and developing techniques qualify as more unpredictable outcomes. After all, the great technical masters of film photography always describe the need to develop and hone a predictable shooting and printing process.

That said, did you just view the post or am I off your ignore list now


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 26, 2008)

Jeez, I took you off 2 or 3 weeks ago. 

I think you were only on for a few days and mostly due to Terri freaking out and making false accusations. I'm over it - kinda.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Sep 26, 2008)

Mike_E said:


> Hertz Van- has brought this up a number of times.  If he isn't tired of the  whole thing, you might get his views.  If you can find him that is.  :/



Mentioning my name is a bit like saying Betelgeuse three times...

Firstly, you need to define the term 'abstract'.
In Art 'abstract' in it's broadest sense refers to anything which does not represent a recognizable object.
I suspect at least some people in this thread of not fully understanding this and thinking that photomontages (either made with Photoshop or with scissors and glue) are abstracts.
Distorting, altering, fragmenting, colouring or otherwise playing with an image does not create an abstract if the result can still be recognised as - or be seen to contain elements of - a figurative image.
This makes it clear that Photography starts with a disadvantage when attempting to create an abstract image.
How can one create an image that is abstract by using a process that is specifically designed to make a figurative representation?
Or to put it another way, abstract Art is an attempt to represent the unrepresentable: to present the viewer with something that does not and cannot exist in any form outside of the medium itself. Photography, by it's very nature, can only produce images of things that have physical existence so clearly will have problems trying to represent things that do not exist.
Further, any manipulation of a photographic image runs the risk of pushing it to a limit where it ceases to be a photograph and becomes a graphic image that merely incorporates photographic elements.
The problem is not insoluble. It is quite possible to produce images that can be defined as abstract through photographic means. But it is no simple matter and takes thought, inventiveness, skill and some wit to do it successfully.
And therein lies the answer to why abstract photography is not very popular


----------



## abraxas (Sep 26, 2008)

Hertz van Rental said:


> Mentioning my name is a bit like saying Betelgeuse three times...
> 
> Firstly, you need to define the term 'abstract'.
> ...



Thanks. :thumbup:


----------



## JC1220 (Sep 26, 2008)

Alpha said:


> I partly disagree. That bars the kind of series I just shot from being considered fine art. I don't say that to toot my fine art horn, but as a matter of principle. Does it really detract from the creative process that I couldn't have predicted how the shots would turn out? We film photographers are in the habit of occasionally committing ourselves to processes with unpredictable outcomes. I think cross-procesing or even shooting with very expired films qualifies, even if the results aren't as extreme as the series I just did. When push comes to shove, the series I just did was far more a function of uneven development and neg sticking to pos than it was a matter of compositional forethought. However, that doesn't make it a less creative process. It's possible that anyone else who had exposed those five pieces of film would have ended up with an outcome very very similar to mine. But the point is that they didn't. I did. I pulled the slide, tripped the shutter, passed the sheets through the rollers, and pulled the packet apart. That makes the images my creation, and my art.


 
I don't think we are far apart on this. I am not saying I would bar something from being considered art, ultimately, I don't care how you got the results you got, the work will be judged on its own terms. And, it is there where you can see and feel how successful it is. The masters sought predicable technical aspects of their photography for a reason, so that they would be free from the technical leaving the ability to express their work. Unpredictable techincal results in the printing process, or the technical in general was not what I was getting at; but, can those results be a true creative expression of yourself if left to chance?

There was mention of the unknown in photography and, for me anyway, this is what photogaphy is about, discovery and the expereinces around photographing. The production of the photograph is really a bonus in the whole jouney, having a viewer connect to my photographs is another great bonus, selling a photograph another bonus. This is also one of the main reason I never return to the same location to "remake" a photograph, the only reason to do so would be to make a good photograph, it lacks discovery and connection and it is obvious in the final work.

In addition I think photographers need to stop being so caught up in labeling the kind of photographs they have taken or plan to take, landscapes, abstracts, semi-abstract(whatever that is),macro, etc.  These are themes or styles and that should emerge as a function of your work naturally.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Sep 26, 2008)

IMO, abstract photography is about composing simple photographs so that shapes and forms (lines and curves) are the main subject either with or with out a recognizable object shown.   I have seen good and bad abstract of everything to and from backlit purple cabbage, bedpans, desert sands, human form and architectural details in books and this forum.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 26, 2008)

I think the dictionary works well for defining "abstract" in photography:

abstract
adjective |ab&#712;strakt; &#712;ab&#716;strakt|
existing in thought or *as an idea* but not having a physical or concrete existence : abstract concepts such as love or beauty.
&#8226; *dealing with ideas* rather than events : the novel was too abstract and esoteric to sustain much attention.
&#8226; not based on a particular instance; *theoretical* : we have been discussing the problem in a very abstract manner.
&#8226; (of a word, esp. a noun) denoting *an idea, quality, or state* rather than a concrete object : abstract words like truth or equality.
&#8226; of or relating to abstract art : abstract pictures that look like commercial color charts.
verb |ab&#712;strakt| |&#601;b&#712;strøkt| |øb&#712;strøkt| |&#601;b&#712;strakt| [ trans. ]
1 consider (something) theoretically or separately from something else : to abstract science and religion from their historical context can lead to anachronism.
&#8226; [ intrans. ] form a *general idea* in this way : he cannot form a general notion by abstracting from particulars.


For me at least.


----------



## PhilGarber (Sep 26, 2008)

I love semi-abstract! I'll pm you later on maybe starting a theme in the themes forum if your interested..


----------



## 50two (Sep 26, 2008)

i always new abstract (in art) as "a visual message in its most pure, raw form"
as according to my art teacher..so i have no idea what abstract photography is D;

examples anyone?


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 29, 2008)

Is there a "most pure, raw form"?


----------



## Joves (Sep 29, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> I want do more abstract stuff but it more often then not calls for contrivance, forethought, and what boils down to allot of work. Thus it's not copacetic with my usual spontaneous style. I wonder too how many others (hobbyists at least) feel the same.


Yeah Im in the same boat as you in shootings abstracts. I really have to motivate myself to do it, which makes it feel more like work than fun.


----------

