artBob Loc: Near Chicago

I think "abstract" shots are most liked when they have a recognizable subject and when they do not have a person (which instinctively draws the mind into its category, specific mode).
I hope others chip in on the discussion with examples of their thinking.

(Download)

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Well seen, and it works for me.

I feel abstracts can be almost anything, from nature (like your example), people (think distorted reflections, long exposures), architecture etc.

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

That is a very appealing shot, Bob! Calming.

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

I think we had an involved discussion of abstract in the section a while back. No matter. It is something that many of us delve in from time to time. I think abstract comes basically in two flavors. Representational, like your photo. We know it is ice and snow with vegetation; but you chose to give us just a detail of the whole scene which makes it appear abstract. The other flavor is non-representational. Here it is much harder to tell what you are looking at; but the form can make your mind come up with its own subject matter. I like to use motion blur for these kind of shots and I do quite a bit of it. This is a recent shot that made me think of extreme verticals like those found in gothic cathedrals. The actual subject is trees. I also think the reactions come in two flavors. One: Wow, that is pretty cool. I kind of like it. Two: My God, Erich!!! What were you thinking, and why would you abuse your camera in such an unnatural manner !

(Download)

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

I'm enjoying this discussion, good views, by good photographers.
By the way, if you really like distinctions, the art world separates "abstract" (such as mine and Erich's, which are drawn out--abstracted--from real objects) and "non-objective," which are composed of shapes, etc. totally from the mind, such as Pollock [first image] and Mondrian [second image], which seems theoretically impossible with photography that starts with a shot of something. Some do work directly on the paper, neg, or slide, so that would be non-objective [one of mine, the third image]

(Download)




(Download)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Would you be able to convince me that the Pollock image is a product of talent or imagination, because I would say that's exactly what it's not. I can see the value of #2 because I know it's not easy getting that apparently simple pattern to look right, and when it does look right it works in a simplistic way. I can also see the value of #3 and Erich's because they're suggestive of real life objects in a subtle way and they leave your imagination to fill in the blanks. Likewise I can see the value of your first image because it makes us aware of the unusual within the commonplace. You say that the first image is non-objective because it's composed of shapes totally from the mind. I would say the shapes are totally from a random, unplanned process and all the creator has to do is to make it look convincingly random.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

This is a photography board, so you and others might not be interested in why Pollock is considered an artist.
I always told people in my Art Appreciation courses to "see like a rock," that is, to just note what is really there, as a first step, not to judge too soon. Some would say Pollock's drips "look like pigeon shit," but that is too soon a judgment I think, as is your "I would say the shapes are totally from a random, unplanned process and all the creator has to do is to make it look convincingly random."
Yes, the drips and splashes look random. They certainly "show" nothing. Yet they really both are and are not random. Here was Pollock's aim: to "be IN the painting," to have the painting show the PROCESS of ACTION, rather than a completed, thought out piece. This is somewhat like jazz. It catches the beginning of individualism and activism that blossomed in the 1960s. It really is best experienced in person, when you stand in front of these huge pieces, their environment surrounding you.
But, you say, jazz, while improvised, has a kind of control, a rhythm, or melody, or something to keep it in bounds. Well, so did Pollock; but a person needs to understand composition to see in his actions rhythm or circularity, the two types of visual organization he most often used. (Examples attached)
Knowing that, a person has to give himself up, somewhat again like jazz, and just EXPERIENCE. This is very hard for some to do, and my experience suggests that some people are hard-wired to be incapable of it, much as I am hard-wired to not be a great musician or mathematician.
Whew!
By the way, as with music, a person does not have to like every type. Like you, I prefer Mondrian, Pollock not so much.

(Download)




(Download)

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

The Pollock images do not do antthing for me, where as Modrian (I had to look him up) do.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Here are two found, nature, abstracts.
Not a lot of PPing in these except for levels and croping (if needed).

Seen in a botanical garden.

(Download)

At the seaside.

(Download)

magnetoman Loc: Purbeck, Dorset, UK

Well for once I disagree with RG! I think the Pollock has a lot going for it - and I reckon it is 'intentional' enough to be considered as a skilled creation. There is so much that can be found within it - my immediate thought is trees but there are others, its all down to the viewers imagination. Some of his more repetitive patterns I don't find so interesting, although they are usually very colourful - a 'saving grace' for me. The Mondian does nothing for me at all. Your own offering I find superb - probably because of the way the lighter areas are coming out of the dark background and the composition. Your original post is 'OK' for me - its an image I might see daily due to where I live, so is not so striking for me. It's colours are a bit flat as well - but of cause the forms are nice. I decline the offer to add a shot - the last time I did that in a FYC abstract thread I got demolished!

DaveC1 Loc: South East US

This is one of your better efforts Bob, IMO.

DaveC1 Loc: South East US

fergmark Loc: norwalk connecticut

I certainly wouldn't expect to see people in an abstract photo. There is surely a mixed opinion about whether something is still recognizable. I would know immediately that this photo was ice. Some might not. Either way I think of it as abstract

(Download)

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

It works for me, and we never ever see ice like that where I live.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Your shot selection, composition, is very good, and helps folks "tolerate" the abstraction more. Congrats!