Understanding Abstract Photography
“There is no abstract art. You must always start with something. Afterward you can remove all traces of reality.”
(Picasso.)
Whilst wallowing in my bubble bath last night (that’s vanilla flavour for all you bubble-bath devotees out there) I was musing on abstract photography. I’ve always wanted to write a critique on an abstract, but the problem has always been that I just don’t understand this art form.
(Picasso.)
Whilst wallowing in my bubble bath last night (that’s vanilla flavour for all you bubble-bath devotees out there) I was musing on abstract photography. I’ve always wanted to write a critique on an abstract, but the problem has always been that I just don’t understand this art form.
Now when you think of an abstract photograph, you think of something like this acclaimed image, by my beloved Mr Jensen. The problem for me is that although I find this photograph quite beautiful, I have absolutely no idea what to think when I look at it. My mind goes completely blank.
So what am I doing wrong? Well, after reading a little about it, it seems that I’m approaching abstract art the wrong way. Apparently a better question to be asking myself is, “How does this make me feel?” What the artist intended, or sees in the image, is completely irrelevant. What only matters is what the viewer “sees”. And by “seeing” I don’t just mean trying to understand what the artist was thinking (which is where I’ve been going wrong.) What I should be doing is studying this image for a longer period of time, say half an hour, drinking it in, losing myself in it, letting my imaginations and emotions run wild. Exploring the colour, the texture, wandering beyond the visible and seeing where the meditation takes me. What I will end up feeling won’t be the same as what Brooks felt, and indeed, his intentions are irrelevant. Abstract art is a mirror. When we look, we see ourselves as much as we see what is in the image.
Now at this point, I’d love to start waffling on about abstract nude photographs, such as Stephen’s intriguing image from a few weeks ago. (Please note that Stephen didn't claim this was a true abstract photograph - although I think it's an excellent example of the term.)
However this caused a bit of an argument with Rich, because it turns out that he (Rich) doesn’t think abstract nude photographs can ever exist at all. If you can remotely tell it’s a nude, then it can’t possibly be a true abstract, by its very definition. Rich reckons that abstract art is supposed to interact with the subconscious in order to see what images can be conjured up to generate meaning to the viewer. Thus abstract art works best if there are no recognisable images. The inclusion of a nude form would cause the viewer to centralise their focus on the form, and so it no longer classifies as an abstract.
Hmm. I suspect he might be right, although I am unfortunately not qualified to judge. What I do know is that I can connect with Stephen’s image because I can see it is a nude, so my mind can immediately focus on something, the object, the woman, and extrapolate accordingly, so it is easier to understand.
So…back to my dear Brooks…I gave his photograph my complete attention for a full ten minutes (and that’s a mighty long time for me.) What did I see? Did I glimpse the meaning of life? Did I discover a part of myself? Did I actually experience anything at all?
Nope.
Still nothing.
Really pretty wallpaper, but that’s all. The meaning escapes me.
Oh God, I’m obviously shallow, superficial, and clearly I have no appreciation for true Art. And I so very much wanted to understand.
Labels: Art
posted by Lin at 1:23 PM
9 Comments:
Yes, I think I would have to agree with Rich. That photograph doesn't fit "abstract" because it's about an easily recognizable object, and was intended as such. It kind of looks like a Japanese line drawing to me, though.
Anyway, I don't generally feel anything special when I look at abstract photographs or paintings either.
Jackson Pollack splatters look cool, but, well... I generally come back to, "What was the artist feeling when working on this?" And, I don't think I'm wrong to go that way. I do it with music, too.
And I think with abstract art, it really is about what "looks cool" or scary, or just interesting most of the time. That may be the best we can do in "getting" it.
Let's remember that there are many out there who will try to impress everyone, and themselves, by what they say they "see" in an artist's abstract. Mostly bull shit, I think.
My take: Look at an abstract. If you feel something, that picture was just the trigger. It's the same when you hear an old song that triggers a memory. Or a smell, or a color. The feeling or absence of one, is something that is all yours and has little to do with the artist.
Sometimes, however, an artist's work resonates with you, for whatever reason. I immediately remembered this artist while writing this... I REALLY like her work. It is exciting to me:
Samantha Keely Smith
If I may throw another spanner in the works....................
I would call Mr. Jensen's work a detail or a texture, not an abstract.
And I have to agree with Stephen and Richard, maybe if the image contained a simple line or detail it might be seen as abstract but when lines and details are both present it is an recognised image.In my opinion. Then again there is the area of semi abstract which opens another avenue of discussion.
What I see....the meaning of life (male perspective).
First of all. Your sitting in a tub of vanilla bubbles, they're always changing, the waters moving, you probably had the aromatherapy candles flickering and the soft jazz on the radio. That's abstract right there.
Second. Why do you have to understand it?
It's abstract.
ab·stract
–adjective
1.thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.
See - "apart from concrete realities". It's mush, it's supposed to be mush. Your not suppose to define it.
2.expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice, poverty, and speed.
See no "specific quality or characteristic".
3.theoretical; not applied or practical: abstract science.
Lets take a wild ass guess.
4.difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract speculations.
Definition of a woman. Just seeing if your paying attention.
5.Fine Arts.
a.of or pertaining to the formal aspect of art, emphasizing lines, colors, generalized or geometrical forms, etc., esp. with reference to their relationship to one another.
b. pertaining to the nonrepresentational art styles of the 20th century.
Now the Art people get involved. First they put it in a formal box and define it and then they go - No - lets have another glass of wine and let it go all over the place.
–noun
6.a summary of a text, scientific article, document, speech, etc.; epitome.
Lets some it up - it's abstract.
7.something that concentrates in itself the essential qualities of anything more extensive or more general, or of several things; essence.
Damn I'd have to be under some heavy therapy to decipher that one.
Anyway...
I agree that it's up to the viewer to crack the code of the image. To decide what the image is about.
Take No. 3 Fort Worden.
As I see it - It's late on a dark foggy night with a light misty rain falling off and on in the village. Lin and Rich are out shooting under a street light and in doing so take a huge risk that the local security forces might come and grab their cameras and arrest them for being picture taking subversives. But that just adds to the tingle of their fetish photography this night.
That's Lin in the lower left - she's wearing a trench coat. She has it open to expose her black vinyl corset, that she has pulled down, exposing her breasts to the glistening mist. But what's really going to make the image for her is the Mickey Mouse hat with the big black ears that she's wearing.
What - you haven't seen Rich - he's in the lower right corner. You can just see the side of his face and shoulder. He's standing under the street light, right next to the pole, so he can get the light as it falls on the front of Lin through the fog. He's wearing his favorite foul weather wide brim hat that Lin bought him her last time in London.
He has just lowered the camera because he can't believe who just walked out of the fog between them.
It's the local Bishop in his big tall hat. See him - he's just to the right of Lin - you can only see him from the waist up because of the fog. What you can't see is he's as drunk as sailor on shore leave. I didn't realize his ears are so big. Also what you can't really see in the fog is in his hand is a leash connected to a collar attached to the very naked and also drunk Maggie Mae walking behind him. Luckily they are oblivious of the stunned couple and disappear into the mist as quickly as the came.
In fact they did not even notice as Rich squeezed off several frames as they passed between he and Lin. Rich figured he couldn't pass up the chance to have some nice photos to share encase the Pope decided to add nude photography to his list of new sins.
or..... it's a image of a bunch of peeling paint and dirt on a concrete wall in a old fort.
or...it's a foot print.
or....it's an abstract image.
Too Much Fun.
Sorry-you asked a thought provoking question. I started to answer in a kind of serious way, but it quickly deteriorated away from that.
But I needed some mindless fun to offset the last two frickin days. I hate computers and shitty customers.
Oh Oh 1:00 a.m. Now I have to go to bed. Sometimes I don't like going to bed in the same day I have to get up in.
Night Night
D.L. Wood
Mr Wood, as well written and enlightening as always, but alas your visualisation of me sounds so much more exciting than the reality :-) And just how many beers had you had before you wrote that?!
Ed, yes you're absolutely right. And thanks for the link. Samantha Keely Smith rocked our world. Wow!
Now her art I really "get"...I would love to hang one of those on my wall and lose myself in it for hours. Why do I connect with hers, and not with Brooks'? I guess it's all in the lighting and the vibrant colour.
Have you ever looked at the sky...overcast day..not a REALLY overcast day, but one that is somewhat overcast? What color is the sky? Grey?..Light Blue? Sometimes even seafoam Green? Have you ever seen a cloud formation that looks like the left side of Geraldo Rivera's face? Or a cloud formation that looks like Tonya Harding nude in a Car driving through the Drive Through Window and McDonalds? To me I think THIS is abstractism....we formulate something and see something out of nothing.
But with art...I have a tough time myself "understanding" abstractism..I mean UNDERSTANDING it and what the artist was trying to say..; however, I find abstract pieces that I enjoy looking at...but I have not the mental software needed to UNDERSTAND the work. Nor do I try even try to decipher it.
I am shallow...very unsophisticated in this aspect I guess...and that's OK with me. I come from the "not trying to say anything" with my art school of philosophy (and was beaten up by Martin Schreiber (Famous Madonna Nudes) while at Dinner in Feb for not trying to do so.) No biggie.
I ask him "what does my work say to YOU"...his response?..."nothing"....I replied..."Good...don't waste your time looking at it"..he then ask me "what I thought his photos of Madonna were trying to say to me"..I told him..."I think your trying to tell me that Madonna wants me to get a boner!!".
Oh well..so much for MY sophistication and the end of THAT conversation with Martin.
If you ever get any insight on such things...PLEASE let me know. I hate missing out ...;-)
bt
"but alas your visualisation of me sounds so much more exciting than the reality"
Isn't that the great thing about imagination.
"how many beers"
Actually - none - it was an organic green tea night. It calms me down sometimes.
I also took Eds link. The lady is good.
You and Ed both brought up color. I think a lot of abstract photography is of flat items. I think color brings more emotion to this type of abstract image than black and white. The Brooks image may be much more provoking or dynamic in color.
or....It may be just old peeling paint and dirt left on a concrete wall in an abstract way.
D.L. Wood
Mr Wood, if that's your imagination after drinking mere tea, then I shall look forward to experiencing it after alcoholic lubrication.
And good comment, BT :-)
I'm a bit of a cloud watcher myself.
The trouble with using alcohol as a lubrication of the creative spirit is that you have such a small window opportunity. That being the space between releasing some hidden or suppressed emotion or feeling and just being a frickin idiot.
One good thing now at my age. I only drink when I'm alone or with someone.
D.L. Wood
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home