Hello All !
I am relatively new to 1x. I must say I have finally found a photo website I can come back to daily for wow and inspiration.
I do have a question on categories though, that may have been addressed at one time or another. As much as I try, I cannot really understand the difference between the Abstract and Architecture categories, when they both feature buildings or parts of buildings. I am an architect and always on the lookout for cool architecture photography, however I cannot seem to make sense of many "abstracts" published in "architecture", and I would venture to say vice-versa. I understand not all abstracts have for subject a building, but a lot of them do, and a building (or architecture) is clearly recognizable.
There are many cases in point recently, and whenever I post an image for screening, I am always at a loss, when my image is of a portion of a building. When does it cease being Architecture?
Just looking for guidance if at all possible from you all.
Thanks,
Jean-François

Hi Jean-Francois
Many times images are placed in a category that they may not belong. Strict guidelines for the categories are not always followed, and sometimes missed altogether by us. Certainly we can change them, and do sometimes, but for me, the image is where I want to spend my energy and not whether it is in the right category or not. I wouldn't worry too much about this. If it bothers you too much, or is obvious (think fine art nude) let one of the screeners know about the specific image and we can make an adjustment.
Welcome to 1x

JB

Hello Jean-François. Welcome to 1x!

My personal view is that if the subject of the image is in the shapes, lines or colours and their mutual relationship (whether they belong or not to a building) then the image is "abstract", whereas if the image has more to do with the mere architectural nature of the subject (i.e.: the building and maybe its relationship with the surrounding environment) then it is more of an architectural image. As Jerry said, categories are anyway somehow vague entities and it is also down to the author to decide in which category the image fits best (clearly within limits) and it can be changed anyhow.


Thanks Jerry for bringing this up.

I, too, would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone once again to be careful not to choose fine art nude for images that are clearly not for that category, also because at times the wrong image will end up by mistake in that category and will be hidden to all those visitors who have activated the safe mode.

My personal rule of thumb has been that it is Abstract if the viewer cannot identify the subject matter, but it is architecture if it is recognizable as a part of a building. It really doesn't matter much, though. If we feel that the image fits better in a different category, we will move it.

!
This is also exactly my opinion :-) !

Thanks for chiming in folks. Martin I have roughly the same definition, but it is clearly not what i have been seeing there, so that was why I asked. In any case I guess it's not that important, especially if it can be moved if good enough.

Cheers,
Jean-François

I am sorry to chime in again on my slowness to understand the categories. i have been looking at the recent published images and really wonder. I saw Carlos' great image be published in the abstract category, but it is clearly an image of a window with shadows, as Martin pointed out "but it is architecture if it is recognizable as a part of a building." I am guessing I am just really slow or jet lagged from my trip, but I am struggling with this. And in the "architecture" category, many images that are not of buildings, one great example being Pedor's fantastically moody New Pier. A great image, but why is this categorized architecture?
Again, I am just curious. And as these two categories cover most of my work and I am really striving to learn, and hopefully be published here.

hi

technically that window/shadow shot is not abstract. i mean, you can comprehend the object. that's not abstract...but the screeners have already described that they are not strict with categories, and the so-called "street" category is another clear example. dont sweat it, but just understand what you are doing in terms of the global meaning to be safe (out of 1x).

I realize this thread's 9 months dormant, but since I'm a new member, basically, and a retired architectural photographer, I peeked in. And I think there's a misunderstanding here of what "abstract" actually means, or IS.

"Abstract" is also a verb, and it means, basically, "to reduce a thing to its essentials." There is a whole area of publishing, for example, devoted to publishing "abstracts" of books, papers, and articles for those who don't have the time to read everything in its entirety. I have worked for one of these companies from time to time, freelancing abstracts of business books.

Now in the modern art world, there is a tendency to equate "abstract" with "subject cannot be recognized", but regardless of how some people have narrowed the term in modern usage, the concept "abstraction" is just not that limited.

So, to get to the point, when we did strongly-lit details of buildings for our clients, we called them "abstracts" and the clients understood what we were doing, they used the same terminology themselves. When we try to capture a series of details that explore the essence of the building through its components, we are "abstracting" the building...

R.

Nice that this thread is coming up again .
A couple of months ago I have written an article about architectural photography for an israeli magazin and it might be interesting to publish it also here :

Abstract architectural photography ? where architecture is transformed to abstract art


Looking to the picture ?Sky Hole? most of the viewers are getting confused about the origin of this photo. Some are thinking about a heavy digital edited picture, some are confident that this is not a photo but a piece of graphic design.
Both are wrong.
The picture is out of the box showing a spiral staircase looking from the basement of an office building in Cologne 7 floors up to the glass roof at the top.
The photo is not only a nice example for a well designed staircase, but also representative for a sector of architectural photography which can be seen in the tradition of the optical art with its famous artists Agam Yaacov or Victor Vasarely.

"Optical art is a method of painting concerning the interaction between illusion and picture plane, between understanding and seeing." said John Lancaster in his book Introducing Op Art. Op art works are abstract. When the viewer looks at them, the impression is given of movement, hidden images, flashing and vibration, patterns, or alternatively, of swelling or warping.
The abstract architectural picture tries to show exactly these impressions to the viewer.

Another example for an abstract architectural picture showing the optical art background is ?Off the Wall? which has been taken outside of the Museum of Modern Art in Mönchengladbach / Germany, a building from the austrian architect Hans Hollein. The viewer can see steps of a stair at the lower left side and the square pattern of the facade at the top right side. But in between there is an confusing area of rhombic elements and three diagonal lamp posts, an optical illusion which has been created by choosing an uncommon point of view.

Generally we have to distinguish between two styles of abstract architectural photography :

On hand hand we have the buildings itselves where the architect has already used a design which appears to the viewer in an abstract way. For pictures of such buildings the photographer can normally take the typical wide angle lens and ? in combination with an interesting point of view, a breathtaking perspective ? easily shoot impressive abstract pictures.

A good example for this kind of buildings is the work of swiss-spanish architect Santiago Calatrava which are well known and very popular in the world. The combination of his structural knowledge with a functional organic futuristic design intention ends up in sculptural buildings which have often parallels to organic structures like skeletons, leaves or wings. These pictures are showing the natural background of his work. A complex building breaks up into simple abstract structures, the building becomes disorganized : Sinews, ribs and joints are coming into the picture. Human and natural parts are getting visible.
The picture ?Lines-I? is showing this perfectly. The photo has been converted into B/W and with the increased contrast it is showing pure graphic now ? the normal viewer would probably not anticipate that the picture is showing the roof of the new train station in Liège, Belgium ?
There is a good number of building from destructive architects all over the world which offer fantastic abstract views :
Frank O? Gehry, typical here the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao/Spain or the Walt Disney Concert Hall in LA/USA, the austrian architects Coop Himmelblau or Zaha Hadid from London/UK .... to name a few.

The other type of abstract architectural photography requires normally a higher attention of the photographer itself by picking out abstract details from ordinary buildings. Often using a tele lens for these photos a trained view is necessary to get good results.
The view away from the object to the facades of opposite buildings offers often fantastic reflections as shown in the picture ?Golden?.

Also looking up or down is often a worth a try. Reflections on the ground after rain or repetitive patterns of a facade are very good abstract objects. ?Borderline? and ?Pattern? are made exactly from the same stand point under the Grand Arch at La Defense in Paris. A simple swing of the camera from the bottom to the top created two abstract photos which are totally different in its subject.


Finally I would like to mention that for a good architectural abstract photo the standard ?rules? for architectural photography have to be considered as well, of course : A proper preparation, light situation, composition, a moderate post pocessing ? taking care of these basics in combination with the view for abstarct elements will guarantee good results.

Hope you like it !