Composition of abstracts

[Rachel Foster]

I've come to realize scenics are not for me, not right now. I think what I truly am trying to shoot is abstracts, whether found in nature or on the street. I will soon embark on Asher's plan of study, but first I want to know if I'm heading in the right direction.

My plan is to post a few images that I find intriguing. I'm asking if -- in this type of shot -- my eye is developed enough to pursue this line right now. I'll say right up front that I know I need to develop my sense of composition.

So....honest, brutal feedback is what I'm asking for. I think there might be something in these worth pursuing. What do you think?

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Hi Rachel

I think the idea is interesting, but that 'less would be more'. I'm not sure how you'll work that out, but there's too much going on for my taste. You need to think about ho the shapes and focus will work together, and colour as well if you leave it in colour.

Interestingly, Michael Reichmann had a shot over at the Luminous Landscape of a catch fence on a ski piste that impressed me a couple of eyars ago.

Sorry, not sure I added much, but I'd try getting closer and looking for interesting graphic compositions within the fence and dark background.

Mike

Mike

 

[Rachel Foster]

I think you're right, but I'm not sure how to crop. That's what makes me think this might be a fruitful area for the exercise.

First, I need to know if there is potential, though.


For example, where once I would have called this a scenic, I'm not thinking of it as an abstract.

 

[Michael Fontana]

Rachel

abstraction isn't just another way of cropping images, either when shooting or in post; but rather an idea about images - a philosophy.

You might look here for some informations abstraction and Paul Klee. Off course you'll find many other artists.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Rachel

abstraction isn't just another way of cropping images, either when shooting or in post; but rather an idea about images - a philosophy.

You might look here for some informations abstraction and Paul Klee. Off course you'll find many other artists.

I agree with Michael fully.

Here is a must-read thread about abstraction:
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2883&highlight=abstract

 

[Rachel Foster]

Super! I'm off to read.

 

[Michael Fontana]

the linked thread might a bit be abstract, missing the starting image... ;-)

Rachel
sorry, if my first reply was short - kinda harsh.
Running arround today, still wanting to point you in a direction.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Michael, unless it's mean-spirited, no comment can be too harsh. That's how I learn.

I appreciate your help, truly.

 

[Charles L Webster]

Rachel, I believe the "abstract" controversy was started by my photo that is now here: http://gallery.photo.net/photo/5547030-md.jpg. I was the one who allegedly mis-used the term "abstract" wrt that picture, which led to a long academic discussion of the meaning of abstract and abstraction in art.

<Chas>

 

[Rachel Foster]

I do love that photo.

What would be the proper term for what I'm trying to do? Anyone know?

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Charles,

Yes you picture there does appear abstract.

I would say that abstract means for us a form of representation which is not exact but is limited and changed in some parameters of description to provide a new meaning and presence. Changes might include such as accuracy of shape, being complete or not, having all the correct parts, being purely that and not something else, having the expected or a new texture, dimensions, continuity, relationships and positions of the parts, function and purpose of the parts and relationship to other social frames of reference such as partly factual, mythological and metaphorical concepts such as beauty, good, evil, history, religion, sex, importance, existence, time, mortality, relevance and more.

The main point is an artistic license to depart from exact parameters we might observe with our eyes to those we might imagine and attach to this form. The actual art must then and create with from all our experiences in the Cathedral of our mind and then externalize in a physical form. In this new language we use objects as a metaphorical system to modify what is real.

asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Hmmmmmm...I'm still not sure what to call what I'm trying to do. I want to take parts of a whole and zero in on them. I think I may even be trying to divorce them from their larger context.

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Great, Rachel rather than worrying about the correct noun you've defined an aim that you can work to for a while. I llok forward to seeing the fruits of your labour

Mike

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hmmmmmm...I'm still not sure what to call what I'm trying to do. I want to take parts of a whole and zero in on them. I think I may even be trying to divorce them from their larger context.

Hi Rachel,

I must add some caution. "Taking parts of a whole and zeroing in on them" sounds interesting but is almost self evident. It's also a dangerous path to take at this stage of your work. I say this because we have an open dialogue and professional trust.

As I said before, abstracting things can be a rewarding challenge to take on. However, first one has to master showing objects as they really exist. After that we can express what is in, behind and between elements in our pictures. First hand me the apple or pear in a photograph!

Here's an example of what I call a "unit of art", a simple clean image of a flower with "magic" painted into it.

This is what one must be able to do before embarking on images which seek to depart from what a person might see.

This is the basis of getting to photograph 30 objects in Riskit and it's a path we all should follow.

Asher

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

Advice from my mentor

One of the best pieces of advice that I got from one of my early photography mentors, was to study the work of other photographers and artists. Go to galleries and museums. It would help me learn to compose my photographs because I would look at images and learn what I liked about those other images.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Thanks for the advice!

 

[Sean DeMerchant]

Hmmmmmm...I'm still not sure what to call what I'm trying to do. I want to take parts of a whole and zero in on them. I think I may even be trying to divorce them from their larger context.

Just focus on the highlighted part. Zeroing in on the parts of a whole is not the direction to abstraction, but to direction one uses to create details*. An abstract is simply in image in which the lines, shape, pattern, texture, and etcetera contribute to create a graphic design which is stronger than the lines, shape, pattern, texture, and etcetera of the objects in the scene. One does not have to zero in on parts of of whole.

i.e.,

A 2-D Tiling From a 3-D Sculpture
​

Here you can see that the resulting photographic composition is divorced from its larger context except for a small bit of grass beyond the statue at upper left. And while the image is is just part of the whole statue, it is actually a collection of elements from the sculpture that are repeated and from the framework of the repeated elements this image actually stepped back and took in more of them to achieve abstraction.

In other terms, an abstract image is one in which the image shows a design that does not recall the world about us, but instead calls attention to its design without referencing the world. Hence an image of a flower or a collection of fern fronds is not abstract because we can concretely equate them with.

We also do not want to make the definition more complex than this as increased complexity only makes things harder without increasing our understanding. This (scientific) principle is why you will see me occasionally say insulting things about rules in photography as rules in photography make it way too complex compared to working with the eyes response. The hardest thing to do in learning is unlearning incorrect things you have learned over the years so that you can further your understanding.

There are myriad ways one can achieve abstraction, but it is only the things that are consistent across all abstracts that make an image abstract. The rest of it is details of implementation and not the thing itself.

enjoy your day,

Sean

* A detail is an image which shows a part of a whole object and perhaps its relationship to the whole.

 

[Asher Kelman]

An abstract is simply in image in which the lines, shape, pattern, texture, and etcetera contribute to create a graphic design which is stronger than the lines, shape, pattern, texture, and etcetera of the objects in the scene. One does not have to zero in on parts of of whole.

i.e.,

A 2-D Tiling From a 3-D Sculpture
​

Here you can see that the resulting photographic composition is divorced from its larger context except for a small bit of grass beyond the statue at upper left. And while the image is is just part of the whole statue, it is actually a collection of elements from the sculpture that are repeated and from the framework of the repeated elements this image actually stepped back and took in more of them to achieve abstraction.

Where's that whole picture?

In other terms, an abstract image is one in which the image shows a design that does not recall the world about us, but instead calls attention to its design without referencing the world. Hence an image of a flower or a collection of fern fronds is not abstract because we can concretely equate them with.

We have travelled this path before when Alain Briot dismissed an image by Harvey Moore, An Abstract flower, as being not "Abstract" because he could still see the flower as a flower and it didn't fit in with the Wikipedia definition.

This is a flower, not an abstract.

Abstractions are images where the subject is not recognizable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_art

Source.

However, in reference to images at the National Gallery in Washington D.C., this definition is not used as a standard throughout the art world. Is it used in any museum? I don't know!

To me, at least,

An abstract image (of an object or a set of objects or a scene), is one in which some elements have been maintained and others lost, altered, decorated, distorted, rearranged, morphed, exchanged or added in order to create a symbolic (and perhaps decorative) derivative which expresses realms of ideas and evoked feelings differently than the original objects from which the elements are, at least, in part, derived.​

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Ok, then what I'm trying to do is to look at parts that interest me due to shape, texture, or lighting. For now, I'll call it "design-ism" because I don't know how to label what I'm doing.

Fascinating topic, though, I have to admit.


As to studying other artists, I do some of that but I do it extremely selectively and carefully. I do not want to copy what others have done. I've noticed that my most creative stuff was done when I first started shooting. I'd like to get back to that.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Rachel,

Sean's example is also relevant to your particular picture. His picture is arresting and capture attention, while yours is a puzzle. We have a clash of unnatural colors and form with natural grass.

Covert it to a B&W version and adjust the levels and you will be surprised. Artificial colors often ruin images.

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Sean's is wonderful!

Do you mean the ferns? It's pretty much right out of cam, unedited.

 

[Sean DeMerchant]

Where's that whole picture?

​

Not the best shot, but I like to shoot long so wide shots are not something I shoot often. Note the missing "hut" in the grid. That was a hassle in getting my vision realized.

We have travelled this path before when Alain Briot dismissed an image by Harvey Moore, An Abstract flower, as being not "Abstract" because he could still see the flower as a flower and it didn't fit in with the Wikipedia definition.


Source.

However, in reference to images at the National Gallery in Washington D.C., this definition is not used as a standard throughout the art world. Is it used in any museum? I don't know!

To me, at least,

An abstract image (of an object or a set of objects or a scene), is one in which some elements have been maintained and others lost, altered, decorated, distorted, rearranged, morphed, exchanged or added in order to create a symbolic (and perhaps decorative) derivative which expresses realms of ideas and evoked feelings differently than the original objects from which the elements are, at least, in part, derived.​

Asher

This is where Occam's Razor cuts deep. If you can get this down to 15 words, then I would say you have a definition.

Here, there is too much exposition on technique to make the subject being defined clear. Attempting to use this as a definition is too complex and requires too much thought when one should be working with the techniques they know and crafting a vision out of what they see before them. When rules get too complex one ends up having to think rather than running it by a short, simple, and easily memorized definition that is easily translated into intuition. And a shooters style is simply the intersection of the techniques they have mastered, the equipment they are using (sets physical limits on technique), and what they know/see intuitively.

There is an interesting list of definitions here that run the gamut. Some are satire. Some allow blurry images, some disallow blurry images. But a definition should be clear and simple whether applied to sculpture, tiling and mosaics, photographs, or any other medium.

Stepping back to a more general to [SIZE=-1]consider a concept without thinking of a specific example[/SIZE] leaves us with a definition that is inclusive of most everything people would consider an abstract. This definition even encompasses the abstract in a technical article. And at this point of generality the concept is very simple and easy to memorize. And anything that is hard to memorize will be very difficult to translate into intuition. And without that last step, I am lost as I do not like to worry about definitions when shooting, I like to explore the images I can craft.

enjoy your day,

Sean

 

[Sean DeMerchant]

Thank you Rachel.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I've come to realize scenics are not for me, not right now. I think what I truly am trying to shoot is abstracts, whether found in nature or on the street. I will soon embark on Asher's plan of study, but first I want to know if I'm heading in the right direction.

My plan is to post a few images that I find intriguing. I'm asking if -- in this type of shot -- my eye is developed enough to pursue this line right now. I'll say right up front that I know I need to develop my sense of composition.

So....honest, brutal feedback is what I'm asking for. I think there might be something in these worth pursuing. What do you think?

This is the unnatural color I'm referring to. In B&W, it's far more interesting, but if it's not your vision then that is no help at all! however, I just thought you might appreciate the negative value that artificial color can sometimes bring to a possibly interesting image.

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Ah, thanks Asher!

That's a safety barrier around an historic building being renovated. FWIW, I am a huge fan of b&w. For example, shot similar to this one (but more of the tree) left me cold in color, but I liked a great deal more in b&W.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Rachel,

Since you posted these images, let me comment. Yes, it's likely to be interesting in B&W. Generally, in doing this, one has to realize one is entering an area of the highest technical perfection that has been developed (perhaps in any medium). So a lot of attention has to be given to reassigning and distributing the hues (colors) of a colored image to become tonalities (blacks, greys and whites) of the B&W photograph. Just thought I'd mention this as one gets away with a lot in a color picture that would perhaps be not so easily overlooked in a B&W derivative. Not that all B&W images have to be perfect, but converting to B&W is a skill in itself requiring, at its best, a good knowledge of B&W work of the masters.

Now that's out of the way, let me return to the subject of units of a thing. This is, I know an artificial distinction but for our sake here let's accept that photography is the imaging of objects. So we can see the pear, tractor, chicken and not feel cheated that only the edge of the pear or half of the bird is shown for no reason!

So looking at you photograph of trees and sky, immediately we see that your vertical framing has sliced both beautiful edges of the cloud. Why? Is it better this way? Maybe it is but not to me!

The tree is cut off at an awkward place even above the trunk, so we do not even see the take-off of the branches. This photograph is simply taken too close for the lens, unless there is some purpose or esthetic I am not getting.

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Oh the crop absolutely stinks. Unfortunately, this was what I had on this machine, but I can see serious problems with this composition even if I try NOT to.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Rachel,

When you take this picture again, which you should, simply don't zoom in unless there is a reason. Allow the subject to exist in it's milieu and afterwards, if you really have to, crop further! It's pewrhaps the fault of some teacher's and what we do wrong with aphorisms like "frame close and crop closer". That's fine if you really understand what you are after.

To start off, shoot only wide and then draw boxes around what you think is the subject.

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

I think I must have been listening to you because I clearly see the problem.

The original close shoot was because there are ugly buildings below where the frame begins. I think this is a case of finding a new angle/place to shoot from.

 

[Rachel Foster]

This

is far closer to what I want to capture. I shot this tonight so I'm pondering it, but I think I like it. I'm captivated by the lines, shapes, and colors. I don't care that it's hostas (which means, I think, that scenics really don't interest me).