Your thoughts on abstract photography

I have always enjoyed abstract imagery - mostly due to the mental challenge necessary to understand, interpret and eventually appreciate it. So whenever I see good abstact work (photography, paintings, sculpture, etc.) on display, I am immediately drawn toward it. Recently, I started incorporating elements of abstaction into my own work and so far its been an enjoyable process. I would like to know what you think and feel about abstract work. Does it appeal to you? Do you make abstact images yourself? What do you like/dislike about this particular style/genre? Do you see it as a useful/interesting way to photograph nature? Any other comments you'd like to share on this subject.

Regards.

FWIW, I like abstract photography a lot. I have treid to create this type of image using very selective DOF. The challenge is to show the essence of the subject(usually flowers) while also capturing the various colors and tones. Selecting the point of sharp focus is also dificult as it is this that will grab your attention and keep your eye exploring the rest of the image.

I love it, but I put pretty stringent criteria on what distinguishes the good from the bad in my book. It really sings for me if there is some kind of subtle key or frame of reference to help the viewer "solve" it or figure out what's going on. It doesn't have to be overt, but there is value for me in being able to solve the riddle of whazzit? I just like the way my frame of reference shifts when I finally get it.

If a subtle key or frame exists to help solve it, then I believe it is no longer an abstract. Abstracts are made to eliminate the real and provide an outlet to your imagination.

That is how I really define an abstract.

Anil, I enjoy them if they are done well, to allow me to put a connotation to them.

Anil:

I greatly enjoy abstract photography...not to the exclusion of more straight forward approaches by any means, but in addition to them.

I think what I like the most about abstracts is that the wrinkle to thinking--both finding abstracts in the field and in terms of viewers' interpretations--that they inherently bring to the photographic process...a process that is so often superficially regarded as "hyper-realistic."

I've seen some excellent abstract photos in ESS and Flora, just as examples, here on NPN.

All right, us lowly cheapskate non-members can reply again!

I was with my art-teacher wife at a museum just yesterday, and she was telling me what she likes about abstract paintings. She said if it's a painting she likes, she just becomes immersed in the interplay of shapes, lines and colors. No recognizable objects need apply.

I don't know if nature photography can be abstract in that sense because our starting point is something real that actually exists. I'm not sure I could enjoy a nature photo that was abstract the way a painting is, but I'd need an example to actually look at before I'd say for sure.

Hey Anil, One of my favorite things to shoot is abstracts. I shoot them mainly for myself as abstracts have not been a big seller for me through the art shows I do, and I've scaled back on how many I bring to a show. It seems the only people that understand the concept are those that have an art background. The few sales I make on the abstract images, are from people that will tell me the've had art classes in college or high school. Even articles or images I've proposed to magizines have had little interest. I like to shoot them because of the challenge it is to find them in nature. Its much harder to see through all the obvious subject matter.

I've shot the typical landscape type of image for years and in spite of the enjoyment, and occasional profit from doing so, I find myself becoming increasingly bored with the subject matter....not only in what I create (which may say more about my lack of "talent") but also in what I view on ESS.

Abstract images, on the other hand, are much more interesting to me. I also find them more of a challenge to find and to compose properly so that they remain abstract while at the same time holding the viewers interest. I think the most successful abstract image is one in which the viewer really has to think about what he is looking at and is interested in doing so.

I seriously doubt youll get any responses from people who detest abstracts (and there are probably not many photogs who do). To me, abstracts are a great connection between phtography in its most technical form, and pure art. I often start with an abstract photograph, then reduce or augment it to develop somwthing that i feel more than see. Come join us in Photo Art and some time and youll see what i mean.

I think a lot of different opinions are floating around out there about what makes a photograph an abstract photograph. I tend to agree with Jim that if you can figure out what the object in front of the lens was by a little extra effort, a photo ceases to be abstract. I’ve gotten a lot of “really nice abstract” comments on some of my posts to which I wanted to say, “thanks, but it isn’t really and abstract because…”

Either way, I like abstract photos, but I might like landscape photos that are abstracted (those where you can determine the subject while the focus remains on shapes or colors) even more. I love isolating details, and in abstract photography, you can take it a step further to isolating one type of detail from the others.

There have been many fine examples of abstract photography using macro and in-camera techniques, i.e. shallow dof, cramming, etc. in floral, ESS, and photo art. I've also seen some nice abstract images in ESS using ice, water, mud, colors in nature. Possibly my definition is different from yours, but why don't you post an example... would love to see some. I'll start with what my view of a natural abstract is.

Anil, you are likely already aware that I very much enjoy the abstract types of images. I think that Kent makes a good point about landscape images that are focused on line/shape/form etc, and I love true abstracts like Patricia has posted (though in reality I don't think I've ever seen a nature photograph that I couldn't figure out what it was). I don't know if it's a "useful" way to photograph nature - I'm not sure how you are using that term. But definitely I find it enjoyable, and I tend to gravitate to images of that sort versus images that might be slightly documentary.....

CJ

Abstract...it's totally in the hands of the photographer as to how she/he presents the subject. Depth, patterns, colors, tones, textures etc...all play a factor in the abstract being. To quote Webster's..."based on the theory that color, line, form and texture, used freely in informal combination, have greater power of expression and of visual excitement than when they are used in accordance with prescribed formal concepts..." Personally, I do quite a bit of abstract shots but do not present much to anyone. It's quite personal and still in a "work of progress". Mike Moats is correct IMO...Abstract doesn't sell much. I think Webster's is right...it's a "freely expressed" form of art/photography...more personal and more expressive and intrepretative...ergo, more abstract in nature. Anil, I'm not sure that I see it as a "useful way" but definitely an interesting way to interpret nature. Once again...personal in shooting just like so many forms of art. And I do enjoy your take on it so please keep sharing...Thanks.

Thanks for all your responses.

Patricia, your photo is lovely.

Anil, I think the question is too broad to answer definitively. It's like asking whether someone likes rock music or the color blue. It really depends on the context and the specific work at hand. So - not all of them, and not all the time, but definitely a lot of them, most of the time.

If you want to get really philosophical, I would challenge you to define what an abstract image is in clear terms. Every photograph represents some departure from reality. At what point is it far enough to qualify it as abstract? Or perhaps all photographs are abstract?

Guy

I like the "take" on abstract art evolved by a friend of ours. She's a very successful painter, known especially for her large canvas "abstract" work. She divides the abstract art world (as defined by her sales history) into two "camps." One is purely abstract ala Pollak, and the other blurs the line with the impressionists- Looked at just right, some feature of an image is familiar, but it's ephemeral. It comes and goes, allowing your mind to jump back and forth between the abstract and the literal.

Based on her 30 year sales history, the truly abstract sells best to museums and corporate offices, while the second genera sells better to individuals. Her sales run about 10:1 against the purely abstract, and that's not necessarily a reflection on her purely abstract work. She's sought after and collected.

My all time favorite of hers, which she sold many years ago for $10k, then bought back out of the owners' estate recently for just over $30k, is 6'x6' oil. It's basically small gray and olive blobs patterned across a bright yellow background. Walk past it and see it in the corner of your eye, and it's a window looking out over the California coastal chapparel. Stop and look at it head on, and it snaps back to abstract blobs. And yeah, the offers on it keep going up, but it's going to stay at home.

I don't think there's any practical way to "define" abstract photography further than that. And I especially don't think one gains any social points for preferring one over the other. Whichever toots your whistle is obviously best for you, whether or not anyone else agrees.

Certainly abstract photographs are enjoyable to achieve as an photographer and to view as well. They have an aura of mystery to them considering that they have been taken from nature. Abstracts also showcases the creative eye of the photographer. Take Patricia brundage's example for instance.

Abstracts, wether photographs or paintings, to me is art that is suited to and completes a certain decor, such as the contemporary style. Non abstracts, to me, have greater potential to explore and dwell on. All of this is my own humble opinion.

Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

My thoughts on abstract photography are sort of nebulous. I sometimes think I can see what I want to say, but then I realize I'm just responding emotionally.

Pete D.