Photo Art: Camera Blur Abstracts

I have just gotten really interested in this. I've been thinking about the legitimacy of this as an art form. The thought occurred to me a few minutes ago that why would making an abstract with strokes of a paint brush be any more legitimate than making an abstract with "strokes" (movement) of a camera and then subsequent post processing? An abstract created by either method (or any other method) could be interesting or boring, have colors and lines that appeal to a person or not, I think.

Does anybody have any thoughts about the legitimacy of abstracts created by camera motion and post processing as opposed to abstracts created by a paintbrush as an art form?

Hi, Barbara - One reason I enjoy Photo Art and using filters so much is that I don't have the time to paint any longer. I can achieve many of the same effects with photo filters and the same vision. I can combine my love of photography with the artistic painter in me.
As I'm using filters, I often visualize a paintbrush and the medium and stokes I'd use in my "old" life.
Both are legitimate Art forms, imo.
Sandy

Hey Barb, these images may be interesting to your photographer friends, but they don't go over as well with the general public. After six years in the art shows business and participating in about 150 shows, there is very little interest in abstracts of this style. I learned this in the first year at the shows, and pulled out all my abstracts. People like to see images of sharp focused subjects and things that they can identify. I had lots of soft focus flower images in my booth and people would say, why are these out of focus. I had one person say, "I can shoot an out of focus photograph, and I don't know what I'm doing". So they don't view images in this style as being very challenging. Photographers get this kind of stuff, and are usually more interested in the process to get the shot. but like I said, those who are not photographers, don't get it.

I feel that the word "legitimacy" is improper to use in this regard. If you like what you are photographing it is perfectly ok and better than that, it is satisfying. It is very individual the feeling of how we see and present images and IMO no one other than you can say that it is not art. my own feeling is that I strive for reality BUT I goof a lot and those goofs often lead me to see an abstract possibility for that goof. This often gives me great satisfaction. It often does not elicite others comments. Who cares.

I like some of the abstracts you do Barbara. I am perfectly happy that you do them.

Thanks, Sandy, Mike and Charlie.

Here's the link to one that I did yesterday afternoon that I really like. I understand that it's not a photograph, per se, as per your comments about what people have said, Mike, but I do believe it is art, as you said, Sandy. Charlie, I've made some photo art from goofs, too, and will continue to do so, but right now I'm loving creating some on purpose. It's odd, but it's really making me feel like an artist.

Barbara, If its not a photograph, what exactly is it ? The same camera, same lens, same person also produced the frame under discussion. Its simply our own mental concepts, limitations etc which play games on us. Its as much a photo as all your other photos are.

Well, that is my opinion.

Thanks, Ram. I think you're right.