What a difference in concreteness to the last three posts – in simple materialistic meaning. In terms of abstraction however, the completely other way round.
Well, not completely the other way around. Those three pictures had far too many cues (in terms of both scale and context) for any abstraction purist.
Well, yes, but that is just a question of quantity, not quality – like Harrie, I think there cannot be such thing as a really abstract photograph. Even if you only show 3×3 pixels very much enlarged, there is still a subject underneath.
Agree, and I’m with Harrie on that point. But beyond that, you either know what a photo “abstraction” is or you don’t. There’s plenty of information in mine to tell you what they are.
Plenty, yes …
You can define abstraction as a process of taking away more and more characteristis of your subject or isolate and magnify it’s characteristics more and more to alienate it – you often do such things in fascinating ways – and reach a far advanced point on the path named abstraction.
That’s an intriguing definition and one that is unique to photography.
🙂 In other fields of art, it may be easier to achieve abstraction, even “non-sujectivity”. The camera always needs “some thing”.
I really like this discussion 🌹✍️👍🏼
So do I. There are not so many persons showing photographs in blogger’s world tending to discuss such theoretical questions, like Harrie, Lynn and you. So I’m always happy to find one. 😀 Especially when a bit of nonsense is an option, too.
I do feel compelled to offer a shout out to Aaron Siskind who was thinking about this topic 70 years ago. I have a friend who’s been painting semi-abstractions for many years who took a class with him at the Art Institute of Chicago; a wonderful example of a photographer’s ideas influencing a painter’s, the opposite of what we normally expect.
Siskind was really a remarkable photographer and is still influencing all kinds of artists today.
JOHN TODARO
What a difference in concreteness to the last three posts – in simple materialistic meaning. In terms of abstraction however, the completely other way round.
Well, not completely the other way around. Those three pictures had far too many cues (in terms of both scale and context) for any abstraction purist.
Well, yes, but that is just a question of quantity, not quality – like Harrie, I think there cannot be such thing as a really abstract photograph. Even if you only show 3×3 pixels very much enlarged, there is still a subject underneath.
Agree, and I’m with Harrie on that point. But beyond that, you either know what a photo “abstraction” is or you don’t. There’s plenty of information in mine to tell you what they are.
Plenty, yes …
You can define abstraction as a process of taking away more and more characteristis of your subject or isolate and magnify it’s characteristics more and more to alienate it – you often do such things in fascinating ways – and reach a far advanced point on the path named abstraction.
That’s an intriguing definition and one that is unique to photography.
🙂 In other fields of art, it may be easier to achieve abstraction, even “non-sujectivity”. The camera always needs “some thing”.
I really like this discussion 🌹✍️👍🏼
So do I. There are not so many persons showing photographs in blogger’s world tending to discuss such theoretical questions, like Harrie, Lynn and you. So I’m always happy to find one. 😀 Especially when a bit of nonsense is an option, too.
I do feel compelled to offer a shout out to Aaron Siskind who was thinking about this topic 70 years ago. I have a friend who’s been painting semi-abstractions for many years who took a class with him at the Art Institute of Chicago; a wonderful example of a photographer’s ideas influencing a painter’s, the opposite of what we normally expect.
Siskind was really a remarkable photographer and is still influencing all kinds of artists today.
Yes, an impressive slipstream