Abstract photography - stage #2
1
Once I was reading an article about an abstract image. I found the author's point of view interesting. He didn't talk about lines, color spots. The conversation was about perception. According to the author, the connection with the object is always broken in an abstract image. I had to think about this for a while.
2
This small series of pictures is just about that. There are flaws in the composition here, I know. But sometimes you have to go for it consciously in order to understand "how it works."
In a word, I came to the conclusion that one of the three pictures is not an abstraction.
3
Moreover, thanks to our competent expert -@llll1lll , you can get feedback and understanding of more subtle things.
Abstract photography - stage #2- idea belongs @lllll1ll
Как-то я читала статью про абстрактное изображение. Мне показался интересным взгляд автора. Он не говорил о линиях, цветовых пятнах. Разговор был о восприятии. По мнению автора, в абстрактном изображении всегда разрывается связь с объектом. Мне пришлось некоторое время размышлять над этим.
Эта небольшая серия снимков как раз об этом. Здесь есть изъяны композиции, я знаю. Но иногда приходится идти на это сознательно, чтобы понять "как это работает".
Одним словом, я пришла к выводу, что один из трёх снимков не является абстракцией.
Тем более, что благодаря нашему компетентному эксперту @llll1lll можно получить обратную связь и понимание более тонких вещей.
Thank you, @rut-ru!
Your approach to the disclosure of the topic is very interesting.
In my opinion, you mean the average snapshot. But the first one doesn't seem abstract to me either. However, this triptych speaks about the search and the final photo was quite successful.
Yes, you understood me correctly. This series is more like an illustration of a thought. The second shot is obvious from the connection with the viewer. The first... maybe. Most likely, the pictures could be arranged in the sequence 2,1,3 to see how the connection with the object weakens and is completely lost.
This is a very interesting thesis to me since I cannot follow it.
The connection between viewer and object can only weaken - so my own hypothesis - if the viewer is ready for this step. And if so, then is the question: can the photographer decide in which way the connection has to be broken? Or is this decision also the viewer's?
Apparently, the photographer must first do his work in this direction. Then he is not responsible for anything. The willingness of the viewer to see something of his own or the author's... it's unpredictable. Everything is in the hands and mind of the viewer :)
Is it so unpredictable? Our expert @llll1lll accurately determined my choice.
But you're right, I'm mostly kinesthetic, I can feel where my gaze stops. When I look at an image, there are three spaces for me (as if I'm looking out of a room through a window).
If my gaze stops before the border, then this is what it is - abstraction.
;-))
But as you know - this might have been by chance, and as you also surely know: expertism is no prove at all.
;-))
Wow! Very well said, imho.
For me, everyone who deals with art professionally is a significant expert :)
To nice to be true.
;-)
Define "professional(ly". Define "significant"!
I read: there are some experts who are not significant. That is: I don'nt have to listen to them?
I read: Bying and selling products of art would make me a professional - and hence a significant expert?
I'm quite sure to have misunderstood your saying...
Okay, to be honest: I even hope to have you misunderstood!
;-)
Of course, my opinion is subjective, because I am an amateur.
And - yes, there are problems of translation, they greatly distort the thought.
I'll try again though:
A professional is a specialist deeply immersed in a topic, possibly having an education in this area.
Significant - the one whose opinion has weight (for me in the first place). For example, as a doctor in medicine))
As I just asked the author - which criteria did you use for this?
I can feel some differences between the pictures, and I would say the third one is the most decorative one. But it seems not yet convincing to me this photo to regard as the most "abstract" one.
By the way, the photos all three together be taken as one work (triptych) seems me to be a very good idea and approach!
Кубики льда с замороженными цветами? Интересно выглядят!
Да, как-то участвовала в одном мероприятии... но если честно, вид замороженных цветов не порадовал.
Бывает и такое.
This is very interesting to me!
Which criteria did you use to discriminating one of your pictures as "not an abstract one"?
I tried to figure this out, but I failed...
;-)
I think this is my personality trait. I am a sensory, which means that the main informational channel of perception is in my field of feeling. It can be difficult to explain in words. I feel the border. In the first picture, my gaze is immersed in the image and is clearly anchored to the dot. On the second, I no longer feel such a confident immersion in the picture, as if I step back a little. In the third case, my attention does not touch the picture at all, it exists as a response without attachment.
Very interesting!!
My gaze also found some stop by the dot in the first of the pictures. But then there was no other anchor, and so I went on.
In the third picture, there is a resting anchor on the right side of the picture. It seems to me as if I were looking on a rotten or dried bloom. Again and again my eyes returned to that part of the picture. I found myself concentrating on the "mantra": don't solve a riddle, just look and taste.
;-)
Wonderful!
It is very interesting to receive such an exchange of views in perception)
Вот третий да, не знаю как там про абстракцию, но выглядит гармонично-цветочно)
Ну и да, абстракция, я просто любуюсь сочетанием цветов и линий.