# ABSTRACT Photography--Definition and Examples



## canonrebel (Apr 25, 2004)

Can someone explain to me what abstract photography is?
What is the definition?
Do you have any examples?

ThanX
The Rebel


----------



## markc (Apr 25, 2004)

Abstract tends to be more about shape and form, and sometimes texture and color, than about subject matter.

I don't have any examples myself to show.


----------



## markc (Apr 25, 2004)

Here are some abstracts.


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 25, 2004)

-How do we communicate with an abstract art (be it photography or painting)?
-How did that art form evolve and why?


----------



## canonrebel (Apr 25, 2004)

markc said:
			
		

> Abstract tends to be more about shape and form, and sometimes texture and color, than about subject matter.
> 
> I don't have any examples myself to show.



Hi markc,
Then, was the brown bag an example of abstract afterall? The brown bag submission still bothers me, 'cause I couldn't relate to it and everyone else did.  I've returned to that thread many times and I just do not get it.  I'm worried that *something is amiss with my perception*


----------



## markc (Apr 25, 2004)

canonrebel said:
			
		

> Hi markc,
> Then, was the brown bag an example of abstract afterall? The brown bag submission still bothers me, 'cause I couldn't relate to it and everyone else did.  I've returned to that thread many times and I just do not get it.  I'm worried that *something is amiss with my perception*



I missed that thread, but I just took a look. Yeah, I personally would consider it an abstract. It's not all-out, as it is still readily identifiable, but it's still more about line, form, texture, color... There isn't really a story there. At least not one that is readily obvious as being intentional.

I find it visually pleasing, but my eye doesn't linger. Don't worry about your perception. Abstract isn't everyone's bag. Even if you are the only person to like something, or the only person to not, that doesn't make you wrong.

It's rare for an abstract to do more for me than to have me think, "that's nice". That's why flower pics don't usually do much for me. They might be recognizable as flowers, but the image really is about color, form, and etc, so I see them as abstract. My prefered viewing tends to lean towards the photojournalistic style, like Robert Frank, Gene Smith, and Henri Cartier-Bresson. Others might see their work as just some people standing around or what-have-you.


----------



## markc (Apr 25, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> -How do we communicate with an abstract art (be it photography or painting)?
> -How did that art form evolve and why?


I can't answer either one, really. I have a hard time reading abstracts as more than being pretty, so I tend not to get any communication from them. It's a really good question, and one that I haven't considered consciously before. I'll have to think on that.


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 26, 2004)

canonrebel said:
			
		

> markc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



canonrebel, when I shot that brownbag, I was never like, "okay, let me do an abstract art". It was a plain simple bag of whatever. It was lying on my nightstand and I liked the shadows, hues, glow that it created since it was placed right near a bed lamp. It was the form (that shadow, lighting)that caught my attention. I do not think I would have shot that bag during the day time. 
End of story! 

I'm on the same page as you are. I do not know how to communicate with an abstract art which I had already mentioned. But that should not make us uncomfortable. But I would really want to know about that art form which was why I raised that query in my prev post!


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 26, 2004)

Here's the dictionary definition:

"Having an intellectual and affective artistic content that depends solely on intrinsic form rather than on narrative content or pictorial representation."

And here are a few of my abstracts, more on my website.







I call this one Grendel, because sometimes I can see a monster in it, but it's mostly about color, and just a little texture from the grain.  Taken on 35mm Konica 3200 exposed at 800.







This can be identified as some sort of concrete construction, but for me it isn't about the three dimensional form as much as the two dimensional pattern of light and dark.  Sometimes I display it hung horizontally, which confuses the viewer even more.


----------



## Sharkbait (Apr 26, 2004)

Would you consider this to be abstract?  Personally I think it's borderline.  It's recognizable, but it's not done in a way that it's _easily_ recognizable for what the object is...


----------



## Sharkbait (Apr 26, 2004)

Another of mine that I would consider abstract.  Feel free to disagree.


----------



## markc (Apr 26, 2004)

Nice stuff, Matt and John.

I would consider those abstract, even if they are of recognizable objects, because the images are more about form than anything else. They aren't meant to represent the object itself, and there is no narative. If they were of the CD sitting on the table, or the ball in the grass, that would be different.


----------



## canonrebel (Apr 26, 2004)

> ABSTRACT: Here's the dictionary definition:
> 
> "Having an intellectual and affective artistic content that depends solely on intrinsic form rather than on narrative content or pictorial representation."



Isn't it wonderful how far a little knowledge can take one.LOL.  Now that I can difine my expectations using my newly acquired knowlege of abstract, my world of viewing pleasure has been expanded.  When I viewed the brownbag again,  I was surpprised to realise (since my lesson in abstract) that I was relating to the brownbag

ThanX for the lesson, folks.

Rebel


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 26, 2004)

But why do we shoot abstract pictures?


----------



## oriecat (Apr 26, 2004)

Same reason you shoot any other picture?  :?  because there is an image you want to capture?


----------



## Sharkbait (Apr 26, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> But why do we shoot abstract pictures?



I find that when I make an abstract photo, I follow a very different thought process.  Take say my soccer ball photo.  As was mentioned, if I'm shooting the ball in the grass or in play, sure I'm trying to find a creative way to show it or to catch the action of it, but when I went to shoot the abstract shots, I took a very different thought process.  I was looking for form, for line, for texture, for lighting, and seeing how those could all combine with a new view (the extreme macro) to take something ordinary and make it into something almost unrecognizable.

So I guess for me it's just exploring into that other realm of creativity, taking photography into a different direction.


----------



## markc (Apr 26, 2004)

Shark said:
			
		

> I was looking for form, for line, for texture, for lighting, and seeing how those could all combine with a new view (the extreme macro) to take something ordinary and make it into something almost unrecognizable.


Have you tried this with your "regular" photography? I mean paying close attention to form, line, etc. I think it's important for most kinds of photography, even if you aren't trying for a completely new view. It might be an interesting experiment to take some pictures in this mindset, but not worry so much about making it an abstract, per say. The images I personally find most compelling have an element of the abstract to them, even if they aren't what would normally called one. I still want something I can logically latch on to, but it can add a mysterious feel to the image.


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 26, 2004)

Shark said:
			
		

> danalec99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can see your point. I too am interested in textures or the macro visuals. We could potray a ball and a CD in a different perspective as you did. Its all good. But *why* do we do that? What is it that ticks us? When a photojournalist shoots a picture in Chernobyl, he/she conveys a story about a particular frame. In the case of the ball, brownbag  or be it any abstract image for that matter, I guess it is just personal satisfaction that plays a role. *We* (the artist) like a particular object/frame, and *we* try to shoot it in an unconventional frame which is appeasing to *our* eyes. But the argument of personal gratification ends right there since there are ppl who seriously communicate with the abstract art. I do not; yet! I plan to do a bit more research on this though. This again leads to a fresh question - why do we shoot a particular frame; is it for the artist him/herself? Is it for the public? Bit of both? I think, for each it is different.


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 26, 2004)

markc said:
			
		

> Shark said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 I did not see this while I was writing the prev post.


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 26, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> why do we shoot a particular frame; is it for the artist him/herself? Is it for the public? Bit of both? I think, for each it is different.



Most of my photography is done for myself only.  I choose to photograph a particular abstract image because I like the color, or tone, or texture, or pattern, etc...    

If I'm being paid I try to do what the client wants.  I don't think I've ever been paid to do abstracts, although sometimes folks like an abstract I did for myself, and then buy a print.

There are as many different ways to look at art (or anything) as there are viewers.  When I am looking at an image (mine or someone else's) I break it down into these elements:  shape, tone, form, texture, pattern, and color.  Shape is the primary element we use to identify an object, so it's the element least emphasized in most of my abstracts.

On the other hand, an abstract can be created by composing identifiable objects in an unusual way.  There is a Berenice Abbot photograph taken from a high view point that includes part of a fire escape, a statue of a horse, and several pedestrians; all identifiable, but the way they are arranged makes the entire image seem abstract.  Vonnagy recently posted an image from the top of an outdoor staircase that I viewed more as an abstract than a documentary image of a staircase because it was very busy making it hard to focus on any main subject, and also the unusual angle of view and composition made it seem less about the stairs, and more about the lines and textures.  At least that's how I saw it.


----------



## Sharkbait (Apr 27, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> Shark said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think for me the why of it when it comes to abstract stuff is to find a new way to look at something.  For me personally that usually involves a very tight macro that focuses in on only one portion of an object, usually an everyday object.  It helps me see all aspects of an image, and helps me expand my 'normal' photography.

Speaking of which, Mark brought up an interesting point in his reply to me, which made me think a bit deeper into this.  Yes, I think that my abstract/macro photography _is_ aiding my 'regular' photography, sometimes consciously, sometimes subconsciously.  When I first started in photography, I'd shoot a landscape and just say to myself _Oooh, pretty landscape...*click*_.  Now, I find myself taking a much more 'ansel adams' approach, and composing the image in the frame, looking for line, for form, for a new way to show a familiar scene.  The more I think about it, even though abstract work is such a small portion of my portfolio, I can directly relate some of that new 'look' to my abstract work.


----------



## Sharkbait (Apr 27, 2004)

Now here's a slightly different track to go off on with abstract stuff.  This hedges into the realm of 'digital art' at least as much as it does in photography.

What do you think of this image:








Personally, I consider this abstract, and in fact keep it in my abstract portolio on my website.  That being said, it's an easily recognizable object, a simple seashell, but it's presented in such a way that it catches the eye because of its odd placement/position/whathaveyou.

(To end the speculation, this is somewhat digitally manipulated.  There was a toothpick propping the shell up that got digitally erased from the image.)


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 27, 2004)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> danalec99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When an abstract is shot for the artist him/herself its cool. I might sound dumb, but I do not have a clue why artists do that for the public. Coz, other than admiring the strong color/texture or whatever in an abstract, I cannot get in to the photographer's mind and look at the image in his/her light. 

For example, Matt says he sees a monster in this image 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, which I cannot. If this is just for his personal collection, well and good, but if he was to exhibit this, 10 people would have 10 different versions on what they think of this image. So the question is IF the image is for a public dislpay, where is the story? What is the story? How will the photographer convey _his_/_her_ story? OR does the question of story arise at all?


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 27, 2004)

Shark said:
			
		

> I think for me the why of it when it comes to abstract stuff is to find a new way to look at something.  For me personally that usually involves a very tight macro that focuses in on only one portion of an object, usually an everyday object.  It helps me see all aspects of an image, and helps me expand my 'normal' photography.
> 
> Speaking of which, Mark brought up an interesting point in his reply to me, which made me think a bit deeper into this.  Yes, I think that my abstract/macro photography _is_ aiding my 'regular' photography, sometimes consciously, sometimes subconsciously.  When I first started in photography, I'd shoot a landscape and just say to myself _Oooh, pretty landscape...*click*_.  Now, I find myself taking a much more 'ansel adams' approach, and composing the image in the frame, looking for line, for form, for a new way to show a familiar scene.  The more I think about it, even though abstract work is such a small portion of my portfolio, I can directly relate some of that new 'look' to my abstract work.



I can relate to that . During my point and shoot era, there were hardly seconds between my eyes seeing a visual/landscape and the *click*. I cannot do that anymore (even if I tried to). I just cannot simply shoot anything that I see now. Like you mentioned, I need to take in to consideration a host of factors! 

But what Mark said is a key point! There is an active involvment of 'abstracts' in an image.


----------



## Sharkbait (Apr 27, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> if he was to exhibit this, 10 people would have 10 different versions on what they think of this image.



You know though, I think that _is_ part of the appeal of the abstract.  It's sort of like looking at theme in a work of literature.  10 different people can get 10 different things out of it, and it's all cool because it's all correct (or incorrect if you're a pessimist  ).


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 27, 2004)

Shark said:
			
		

> danalec99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Cool, so there aren't any set rules or anything!!
Its a wild wild world!! .

I was under the impression that the artist was trying to convey the feeling that _he/she_ felt when he drew the image or shot the pic. 

To everyone, his own, right?


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 27, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> So the question is IF the image is for a public dislpay, where is the story? What is the story? How will the photographer convey _his_/_her_ story? OR does the question of story arise at all?



If it has a story, then it's not abstract.  I enjoy some photographs purely for the visual stimulation.  In others I find a facinating story.  

My images get public display, but when I took the photo that wasn't my intention.  I doubt that anyone who looks at my work sees the same things I do, but that doesn't necessarily keep them from enjoying or being interested in the photographs.  When possible I display my work with a brief description, and I like it when I go to a gallery to see other folks' work, and they include a brief description.  Knowing what was going on in the artist's head usually makes the work more interesting for me.


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 27, 2004)

Thanks guys


----------



## Harpper (Apr 27, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> if he was to exhibit this, 10 people would have 10 different versions on what they think of this image.


That's also true for non-abstract pictures. I've noticed it happens even on this forum. Someone might point out something they like or catch their eye about one picture but I see it completely different or others see it completely different from me.

As the old cliche goes, beauty is in the eye of the holder. One abstract picture might give someone a great connection and understanding while others only make them scratch their heads and say I don't get it.


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 28, 2004)

Ali, I'm taking the liberty to take one of your pictures for the purpose of discussion that is going on in this thread! Hope you dont mind 

This could be called as an abstract, right?


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 30, 2004)

This thread has helped me to train my eyes in a different perspective. I can feel myself being drawn to abstracts. Well, I should say, subconsiously, I _may_ have been doing abstracts. I can see that when I look at few of my photos.


----------



## markc (Apr 30, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> Ali, I'm taking the liberty to take one of your pictures for the purpose of discussion that is going on in this thread! Hope you dont mind
> 
> This could be called as an abstract, right?


It definitely has abstract qualities to it, but some of the elements, like the chair, start to bring in a story. Why is the chair there? Who sits in it? What do they do? It's not strong, but there's enough there I wouldn't consider this a "pure" abstract.


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 30, 2004)

markc said:
			
		

> danalec99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



wow


----------

