@grammyn Yes, so what makes it an abstract? I see a bucket with a crab leg trying to make its way out. Please, please, let me know what I'm missing!!! :)
It is an abstract to me because I didn't see the original subject and would not have been able to tell what it was if you hadn't explained it . I can identify wood but there isn't enough of it to be able to tell what it is without the explanation. "to take away from" or "difficult to understand" are two definitions for abstract that both seem to apply here. Your picture has taken away for the whole making it difficult to understand what it is in reality! Oh, by the way....FAV
@grammyn Terrific explanation, Katy, and I agree. I see patterns and textures, THEN I see a crab making a break for it. The blue looks almost metallic, adding to the abstract presentation.
@rvwalker@grammyn ok, so I see that it doesn't appear clear or that it takes away initially, but I think that with greater observation, the parts come together with the title. I think for myself, abstract does "take away from" and sometimes is "difficult to understand" (in real terms--not in metaphorical or tonish terms), but if after the initial glance, all the pieces come together, it is no longer abstract for me, and that must be where I get stuck. What others may call abstract, I usually just call a bit of a "trick of the eye." So if it tricks my eyes initially, but I can then come back to it without the distraction or difficulty, I'm not inclined to call it abstract. Does that make sense? And thanks Katy for these conversations because I really am intrigued, and I appreciate your perspective!
Yep. It makes perfect sense. It also hints at how we all see an image differently, and why one person might love an image while another doesn't. Sometimes our initial impression is the one that sticks with us even after we look more closely. One definition of "abstract art" is a "departure from reality" In this case we don't see enough of the crab for a positive I.D., thus my unreal "metallic" description. You were there, and you knew it was a crab before the image existed, so your vision of the image is a bit different than those who weren't there. Interesting discussion!
@darylo I have to agree with @rvwalker on a couple of points. the first being that you were there and knew what you were shooting. We only have the image to go by so our perception of it comes from a different set of expectations or knowledge base. Secondly is the statement that we all view images differently based on, I believe, our experiences and personal tastes which influence what or how we see. I do understand your theory that if you can "make sense" of the image it is no longer abstract for you. I also have found this discussion very enlightening and helpful.
@grammyn@rvwalker I truly have loved this discussion and really love that we can have it. As a result, I am much more aware of abstract potential in my work and can recognize it a bit more in others. Yesterday's photo made me wonder...abstract or not! I had both of your voices going in my head and I thought of the perspectives looking at the photo! I can see what you mean Ross about what I know and what the audience doesn't now. This has been so nice. I really have enjoyed this discussion. I hope this post comes out ok. Last time I used my phone, it came out a warbled mess. Katy can verify that! :)
So as I think about this more, I realize that there are two similar but not synonymous terms to work out: "abstract" and "non-representational". Interestingly, one of the first things that comes up when you google the distinction is a painting that has elemental similarities with the Moon Beam shot. http://www.examiner.com/article/abstract-vs-non-representational-art
I personally have a hard time calling anything abstract whose elements are as quickly recognizable as this. If it were processed in a way that the crab claw lost its obvious crabclawness, and the wood and staple their woodness and stapleness, then it would be abstracted enough for me to label it as such.
I do agree, though, that it's subjective. A subject becomes abstract as soon as as it loses its quiddity—its "whatness"—to the observer.
@squamloon@grammyn I love this conversation, and remember having a similar discussion decades ago at a camera club. In the end, we never did get complete agreement. In at least one place, "abstract" and "non-representational" are synonyms, so at the very least, there must be some overlap in the terms. In the end, it must be how we perceive the image as individuals that makes the difference. http://arthistory.about.com/od/glossary_n/a/n_nonrepresentational.htm
@darylo@squamloon@rvwalker This has indeed been a very nice part of 365 for me to have some real feedback about a subject. I think I am going to go with Ross when he says "in the end it must be how we perceive the image as individuals that makes the difference." So as in most art ....subjective!
September 23rd, 2013
Leave a Comment
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
It is an abstract to me because I didn't see the original subject and would not have been able to tell what it was if you hadn't explained it . I can identify wood but there isn't enough of it to be able to tell what it is without the explanation. "to take away from" or "difficult to understand" are two definitions for abstract that both seem to apply here. Your picture has taken away for the whole making it difficult to understand what it is in reality! Oh, by the way....FAV
I personally have a hard time calling anything abstract whose elements are as quickly recognizable as this. If it were processed in a way that the crab claw lost its obvious crabclawness, and the wood and staple their woodness and stapleness, then it would be abstracted enough for me to label it as such.
I do agree, though, that it's subjective. A subject becomes abstract as soon as as it loses its quiddity—its "whatness"—to the observer.
@rvwalker
IMHO.
:^)