POLL - Weekly comp ABSTRACT

[Simple]

Happy voting

[Reinardina]

A double act: Jinky and OB shared winners. Congratulations.

My vote went to Jinky's shot, though OB's was my second choice. Most seem to agree.

Thank you to those, who voted for my effort, which was purely created with the use of software.

[Oldboy]

Well done Jinky. 

[Simple]

Well done both of you. Thanks go to the person that voted for my attempt. I found it remarkable that all entries were digital manipulations. There are so many abstract images around us but we not often take the effort to make pictures of them. Myself included. I looked up urban abstract and found myself inspired to look more closely when walking around.

[Hinfrance]

Congratulations on the two impressionist images winning a contest for abstract images!  I voted for for Re's as it was the most attractive abstract image.

Which brings me to an interesting point - how can you create an abstract image using solely a camera with no manipulation either through lens distortions or software/darkroom processes? The definition of abstract is that it represents something, either indirectly or emotionally, without replicating it, capturing (with a bit of luck) its essence and evoking a response in the observer*. Since a straight photograph is by definition capturing something that physically exists it follows that a photograph can never be truly abstract, merely obscure at best.

*obviously my effort was a complete failure in that regard, but I had fun doing it

[Reinardina]

Well done both of you. Thanks go to the person that voted for my attempt. I found it remarkable that all entries were digital manipulations. There are so many abstract images around us but we not often take the effort to make pictures of them. Myself included. I looked up urban abstract and found myself inspired to look more closely when walking around.

Congratulations on the two impressionist images winning a contest for abstract images!  I voted for for Re's as it was the most attractive abstract image.

Which brings me to an interesting point - how can you create an abstract image using solely a camera with no manipulation either through lens distortions or software/darkroom processes? The definition of abstract is that it represents something, either indirectly or emotionally, without replicating it, capturing (with a bit of luck) its essence and evoking a response in the observer*. Since a straight photograph is by definition capturing something that physically exists it follows that a photograph can never be truly abstract, merely obscure at best.

*obviously my effort was a complete failure in that regard, but I had fun doing it

Never having known what officially counts as an abstract, for me, it is usually a close up of 'something.' The 'something' often not recognisable as such, but the abstract somehow being a distilled core. (Sounds quite abstract, actually.)

I do this regularly, but did not have a recent one, so created a new one from scratch, or from a melon skin, to be precise.

Or, I shoot just part of something, without it being a close up, like this one:



Or is this not an abstract?

This is another detail shot, not a macro, that I think is an abstract, but I'm not sure. So please enlighten me.



I cannot find (yet) the 'proper' macro abstract, as it is not on CC, nor on this laptop, so I have to dig out my external hard drive.

[Beaux Reflets]

Congratulations to the winners 

[Hinfrance]

Ah well, you see, mmm, yes, I mean no.

I would say neither of those were abstract. OED says "achieving effect by form and colour - not representational", and google's dictionary says much the same "relating to or denoting art that does not attempt to represent external reality, but rather seeks to achieve its effect using shapes, colours, and textures." So I conclude that picture of something that exists in reality can never be abstract. It can be realistic or obscure, and possibly impressionist in the right conditions. Other opinions are available™.

[Simple]

About 10 years ago I enjoyed a 11 week course called "art in photography". Abstract was a big part of this. Now we all know that photography is subjective, so I suppose that abstract in photography is definitely subjective. I would however recommend that you Google "Urban Abstract photography" and have a look at the images. You can than perhaps find ways in understanding that there are lots of abstract images in the world surrounding us if you know how to look. Oh, with a minimal amount of digital manipulation as well. I do not say that digital manipulation is not abstract, but only that there is abstract without it, and loads of it.

[Reinardina]

The abstract I am looking for, is somewhere on my external hard drive, but even with the number of the shot in the search engine, I had to give up, as it takes a month of Sundays.

I copied it from Flickr instead, sorry about the enormous size.

This is, what I thought, a 'proper' abstract. No real manipulation, apart from some extra saturation, if I remember correctly.
Does this get 'Abstract Approval'?


DSC08005 Abstract 1. by Reinardina, on Flickr

The urban abstracts on Google, are right up my street. I have done them a lot, but will not try to find any of them.

I will have to start a proper filing system.

[Reinardina]

IOMEGA has its own filing system. I found the pictures I was after, under 'Lots of older folders.' Must remember that.

Also found this one:



Is this considered an abstract?

[Hinfrance]

I'd still say that neither of the two images you have posted are abstract Re, because it is obvious what they are. They are representational, impressionistic, IMHO, so not abstract.

Pollock, Rothko, Mondrian, Frankethaler, Malevich etc etc are abstract artists - purely colours and form, not representational.

I've stated my point of view, I can see everyone else disagrees, so we shall have to agree to differ.

[Reinardina]

I agree that the mentioned painters are pure abstract; I know Mondrian pared everything down to basic shapes/lines.

I do not know how to achieve this in photography.

[Simple]

Mondriaan holidayed often and lived for a while in the village I was born. (Domburg on the former island of Walcheren in Zeeland) following Mondriaans artistic journey through his life you can see a connection how he ended up with his paintings. The church tower in Domburg is one of these examples, he started in 1909 and what was left in 1914 was abstract.
I think the problem with finding abstract is that there are more interpretations then Howard gives us. Just have a look at the list of pseudonyms. A normal item (pictorial thing) can become an abstract if it is shown in an out of context way. I remember looking for shape in flotsam on the shoreline. Something as mundane as that can be shown in an abstract way. I looked up the notes of my course and one of the main things was to look for shape rather than form in things. Hence hard shadows can often be found shown in an abstract way. I can see the way Howard comes to his conclusion, but I think there is another interpretation. So I agree with you to disagree. I wish we could discuss this with a good wine next to an open fire! Anyway it is good to se at least some discussion coming forth he?

[Reinardina]

I am actually reading this with a nice wine and the fire  twinkling at me.  I am also using my tablet, with which I am, even after months, not very familiar.   It makes discussion more difficult rather than easier!

The rain is lashing the windows, and if I had a chimney the wind would be roaring in .

Maybe we should organise an open fire   abstract discussion weekend somewhere. With wine, or a single malt,  s o we could discuss and drink, without the need to type or to drive home afterwards.         

I'm giving up for tonight.