I had this posted in Abstract group, Phyllis Clark recommended I post it here...hopefully I'm doing this right! I copy and pasted my original text and Tom O Scott's reply. Please respond because this could get interesting...

Original Text:

I'm perplexed and thought I would hopefully open a discussion with many artists here in Abstract group. I want to share my Macro, B&W, Abstract, Conceptual, Moody, Still lifes with you. My point being that these images are an artistic approach to photographing a flower and could fit in many genres. These images are not considered your "typical" photographic genre and one that many photographers find distasteful because it doesn't look 'real'. I'm hoping this will open a discussion about photography as "Art" not just photography as documentation with a message. I thought what better group to 'spring' it on than Abstract. :)

Images below are: An abstract macro image of a paper bark flower arrangement. The image was achieved by camera movement, I wanted to show the delicate textures of a flower with a painterly quality. A peaceful mood that displays a pastel and watercolor painting with a Japanese flair.

Blossom

http://1x.com/photo/541231/all:user:445346

Hana

http://1x.com/photo/539866/all:user:445346

I know these shots are not many people's idea of photography, but my point is not to "document" the beauty of a flower but to artistically portray the qualities and emotions one perceives from a flower. I hope you enjoy and please comment with the first thought that comes to mind.

Honestly, I'm not looking for anyone to write positive cheerful comments on my photos. In fact, write exactly what you feel (keep it respectable). We are all here to learn! This site has extremely talented individuals from all over the world that can offer knowledge, guidance, criticism and most of all, Beauty!

Many Thanks,

Beth

Tom O Scott's response:

Hi Beth,

Coincidentally, I was working on a presentation on abstract photography which I'm supposed to deliver in 11 months. Haha, I have to start now, because it will take that long to organize my thoughts.

The first thing I wanted to consider was the whole question of what exactly is abstract photography? So often we are presented with what I regard as a somewhat dogmatic definition: an abstract image is one where the viewer can't really discern the nature of the object presented. Instead, the image relies on shape, form, pattern, etc. to reveal the "inner essence" of that object.

At the other extreme, we have the category "documentary" which is often defined as the "pure" representation of reality, with no modification whatsoever.

That places many of us in this never-never land, where we don't fit neatly into any rigidly defined category. As you have discerned by looking at my work, I don't find these rigid categories useful or necessary.

In fact, ALL photography is an abstraction. This is because the world we perceive is four dimensional, but "flat" art forms, like photography or painting, eliminate two of those dimensions (time and volume), or at best represent them metaphorically. I find it interesting that the categories of "abstract" and "documentary" are typically the only ones that have to do with an imagae's relation to the representation of reality, while all the other categories have to do with the subject matter portrayed.

So I have my own definition what an abstract image is:

An image for which the representation of reality is purely of secondary importance. Primary emphasis is on metaphor, imagination, shapes, lines, structures, etc. Insofar as objects are recognizable, they are put into a context where the

abstraction of their reality is the predominant aspect.

From this point of view, abstract photography is not a modern phenomenon, but one that has arisen right along with the medium itself. For example, look at this Photogram of Algae, by Anna Atkins in 1843: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Anna_Atkins_algae_cyanotype.jpg . Yes, it is algae. But more than that, it portrays the fractal patterns that we find everywhere in nature. I would further say that the sense of wonder invoked by those patterns is the primary goal of the image. Otherwise, a pen and ink drawing would have been far more "realistic."

We find many architectural abstracts on 1x that are extensions of that idea. Take this one - http://1x.com/photo/533166/all:user:71398 - for example, that just got "published". It is clearly a tunnel of some sort, and it is clearly a silhouette of a man. So does that mean it shouldn't be posted under "abstract"? That would be ridiculous.

So, as far as I am concerned, you have nothing to worry about with your new images, either for their placement in the "abstract" category or their general classification as photography. A photograph, after all, is nothing more than the capture of light, or rather, reflections of light.

As for your images, I would not worry about critiques. Yes, get them if you think they can help you technically. Just remember that a critique will not help you with your artistic vision. As has been pointed out several times here, the fact that an image on 1x is popular or not, "published" or not, reflects the tastes of the people on 1x. When Georgia O'Keeffe was 51, many people considered her washed up. Critics panned her focus on New Mexico, especially her desert images. But she stuck to her vision, and had she not, she would at best be remembered as a commercially oriented hack.

As for the images you posted, I think this is a path worth pursuing. They may not be my cup of tea (one look at my portfolio, and you can tell I'm drawn to bold colors and tonality), but this would be the worst reason in the world to stop. I think the idea behind these images is a fascinating one, though, and I look forward to seeing more of these, whether they are "popular" or not!

Sorry for the book-length reply,

Tom

 

Tom O Scott wrote:

They may not be my cup of tea (one look at my portfolio, and you can tell I'm drawn to bold colors and tonality), but this would be the worst reason in the world to stop. I think the idea behind these images is a fascinating one, though, and I look forward to seeing more of these, whether they are "popular" or not!

Hi Tom,

I thank you for bringing up so many valid and thought provoking points of interest! One point I would like to touch on is your statement..."They may not be my cup of tea"

Exactly, it is not like your work, but you can appreciate, marvel at, explore, and become intrigued because it is ART and it evokes 'some kind' of passion from the viewer whether it is to your 'taste' or not. Trying to place an image in a category diminishes it's 'Art' quality, because the viewer is now disposed to view this image in those terms. One reason is, your purists who want a landscape to be just that and nothing more, one tweaks it and adds birds or ripples in a pond...now it's 'Creative Edit'?!?

Okay, now you put it in 'Creative Edit', should it really be there...not much was done to it to excite the viewer in Creative Edit. Soooo, 'Abstract' because no matter what 'anything' can go there! I strongly disagree with that, I believe their are certain images that do fall into this category and your photographic style is an example of Abstract. It should not be the broad spectrum of 'Art', unfortunately it is. I guess 'Mood' then, because yes I am trying to provoke some kind of mood from my viewer and the image portrays a mood, but really, does it to some?!? I could go on and maybe all that needs to be done is to create a new genre...'Artistic Photography', 'Photo Painting' or 'Photo Art'. A thought that could be explored by some...

All in all I admire, appreciate and applaud viewers like yourself that view images as 'Art' and evokes a passion, story, life event, deja'-vu or any emotion even if it's just to say, WOW!

Best Wishes,

Beth

Hi Beth,

The first time I read your response, I thought you were mad at me for expressing my subjective feelings about your work. Re-reading it, I think you understood what I meant though.

 

Separating your subjective response to art from your understanding that something IS art is a very difficult thing. To some extent, I believe it is impossible. And that's why the debate over curation will never have a solution. Art is not, and never will be, a totally objective thing. It's not something we can evaluate with a checklist. If that were possible, then we could write a computer program to evaluate an image.

 

And that is also why so much of good art defies categorization. This is not to say that an image, whether a photo or a painting, that cannot easily be categorized is automatically art, or that one that falls readily into a category is not. But there are many images that don't fit the "definition" of a certain category.

 

So what? Frankly, the category, as I tried to say in my first response, is often meaningless. When we see a great image, the first thing that should strike us is line, form, shape, tonality, metaphor, etc. If the image strikes a chord on THAT level, then the category is irrelevant.

Agreed, unequivocally! I guess I'm trying to enlist others to adapt a similar view or at least look at images with their 'eyes wide open'. :)

 

 

As a fellow member of the Don Quixote fan club, I will fight the good fight with you!

 

Tom, thanks for having my back! ;)

Sometimes it just works better to express your thoughts through an image...

Forest For The Trees

http://1x.com/photo/544730/all:user:445346

Best Wishes To All,

Beth

Tom...

when you say....

 

n image for which the representation of reality is purely of secondary importance. Primary emphasis is on metaphor, imagination, shapes, lines, structures, etc. Insofar as objects are recognizable, they are put into a context where the

abstraction of their reality is the predominant aspect. "

 

The immediate thought i had was that sounds like a description of Poetry. :)

 

This fits well with Beth's thoughts that Abstract photography is not so much documenting something but is more showing us the artistic elements of that subject.

 

An example..with a poem. Even without a title you would know what the author is describing. And he does more than just describe the parts of the object - by using certain words, etc...he offers us an artistic look at a simple watch/clock etc. :) My husband Bill is a poet and this one of his many published works.

 

TIME PIECE

 

Beneath the polished

Calm of glass

The fragile hands

Describe the perfect circles

Of the minutes

And the hours

 

Nothing disturbs

Their equilibrium

A moments happiness

Misery that never

Seems to end

It’s all the same

On that sealed

And numbered plane

 

No doubts or regrets

No jealousies or fears

Only the certainty

Of a little crystal heart

Encased in stainless steel

The precise beauty

Of a small machine

Dividing the mystery

Into equal parts

 

Phyllis,

Bill's poem is sublime. And your comparison of abstraction in photography with poetry is, I believe, right on the mark. Not only that, but poetry in the spectrum of literature kind of suffers the same fate as abstracts -- it is a genre classified by nature of its form rather than its content.