I would say no. . but to me abstract means that you can't really tell what something is at first glance. Then when you study it more you figure it out.
That's just my take on it. It's the only way I can decide whether to put a pic in the mundane challenge or the abstract challenge :-)
For me I think an abstract photo is one where something other than object identification is paramount. Doesn't mean that the object isn't recognizable just that something else; patterns, shape, colour,perception of motion etc are more dominant or attention catching in the image.
Making an object unrecognizable by taking a bad picture of it or running filters that give it overly bright unrealistic colours aren't in my opinion abstract art , they are just bad photography.
I think the abstract photo has to give you something else that takes your attention from the object or makes you see it in a new way, not just obscure the object so you can't recognize it.
Number 1 is abstract in that it isn't readily apparent as to what it is. The others, I have to say no. I'd crop that the candle holder out entirely. The flame is red and I like the white in the background.
I'm doing a lot more abstracts and one thing I've found is the more something doesn't look like what it is the more abstract it is. The idea you want to go for is to make the item you are photographing so far removed from what it is that people will scratch their head and ask what is it. If they have to ask, then you got it.
I updated the first comment to give you an idea of what I would do. Open the image and put something over the holder. Remove it from the image. What do you see?
Abstracts are hard for most people to accept. It means they have to let go of what they see and see what they want. It's all interpretive to the viewer. What you want is to take the viewer into a different perspective and hold them so they forget what they think they see. It's like painting. You just need to keep trying different things and read up on the subject and look at what others do. Whatever you do though, keep it unique to your perspective.
@dmortega so if the object is just to make it not look like what it is why not just put a big black square over it ? Then no one would know what it is and it would perfectly meet your definition of abstract. Or better yet why not photograph something else entirely say take a picture of a car and title it 'Abstract Seed' that should fool the viewers! Wow, abstract out the wazoo!
Rather than people try to explain abstract photography - which is hard to identify as it down to individual interpretation I suggest you investigate some photographers who would fall under the umbrella of abstract artists.
Aaron Siskind is a good place to start and quite accessible. Have a look at what he did and perhaps try to identify for yourself what values are apparent in his work.
As for your photo's I would not class them as abstract.
It sounds like you are not a fan of abstract art. It's not for everyone but neither are baby photos. I would never purchase someone's photo of a baby unless it was my own. FWIW, like most art, there is thought put into it. It's generally not random or haphazardly put together. Taking away the obvious image and focusing on the light, color, or lines can be much more interesting. A good abstract lets the viewer create their own story making the image personal to each one who looks at it.
@dmortega On the contrary, I find much abstract art to be fascinating and compelling. What I think I don’t like is the idea that taking an image of something and messing with it ,for the sole purpose of making the original item unrecognizable to the viewer, does not suddenly turn that photo into “abstract photography”.
If someone looks at one of my photos, squints and asks, “What is it? ” I don’t think that necessarily means I’ve produced a piece of abstract art . It quite possibly means I’ve just taken a really bad photo or done a bad job of processing.
As far as the link to Reinhardt’s Black Painting goes, yes he painted black canvases but not, from what I’ve read, as an attempt to hide a more realistic image from the viewer. But then who knows? Maybe his black paintings were not even original thoughts but just an attempt to imitate Malevich.
I think I agree with Spanner's comment. If you want to get an idea what is generally regarded as abstract photography, it's probably a good idea to look at the works of recognized abstract photogs and see what they have done.
Then, IMO, go off and do your own thing and don't worry too much about what it is labelled. Of course, it is always a challenge to determine what to submit in the challenges that have "abstract" in the title but, if you enter something that someone else doesn't think is abstract, nothing very terrible is likely to happen in any case.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
That's just my take on it. It's the only way I can decide whether to put a pic in the mundane challenge or the abstract challenge :-)
thanks for the input, I had a feeling these didn't really make the cut.
Making an object unrecognizable by taking a bad picture of it or running filters that give it overly bright unrealistic colours aren't in my opinion abstract art , they are just bad photography.
I think the abstract photo has to give you something else that takes your attention from the object or makes you see it in a new way, not just obscure the object so you can't recognize it.
Although my mind seems to have a hard time creating abstract.
It'll give me a challenge .
Aaron Siskind is a good place to start and quite accessible. Have a look at what he did and perhaps try to identify for yourself what values are apparent in his work.
As for your photo's I would not class them as abstract.
I hope this helps.
http://fatherlouie.blogspot.com/2010_04_01_archive.html
It sounds like you are not a fan of abstract art. It's not for everyone but neither are baby photos. I would never purchase someone's photo of a baby unless it was my own. FWIW, like most art, there is thought put into it. It's generally not random or haphazardly put together. Taking away the obvious image and focusing on the light, color, or lines can be much more interesting. A good abstract lets the viewer create their own story making the image personal to each one who looks at it.
If someone looks at one of my photos, squints and asks, “What is it? ” I don’t think that necessarily means I’ve produced a piece of abstract art . It quite possibly means I’ve just taken a really bad photo or done a bad job of processing.
As far as the link to Reinhardt’s Black Painting goes, yes he painted black canvases but not, from what I’ve read, as an attempt to hide a more realistic image from the viewer. But then who knows? Maybe his black paintings were not even original thoughts but just an attempt to imitate Malevich.
I think I agree with Spanner's comment. If you want to get an idea what is generally regarded as abstract photography, it's probably a good idea to look at the works of recognized abstract photogs and see what they have done.
Then, IMO, go off and do your own thing and don't worry too much about what it is labelled. Of course, it is always a challenge to determine what to submit in the challenges that have "abstract" in the title but, if you enter something that someone else doesn't think is abstract, nothing very terrible is likely to happen in any case.
Thank you.
You all seem to have interesting views, didn't realize this would turn into an abstract debate.
I guess I was impatient and just went and tried something without trying harder to understand it.