my contribution to Abstract photography – Stage 2
Abstract photography – Stage 2
This post is my contribution to the highly appreciated contest initiated by @lllll1ll to be found here:
https://steemit.com/hive-185836/@lllll1ll/abstract-photography-contest-within-the-community-world-of-xpilar-stage-2
photo: ty-ty (about 2011)
When I took this picture I did not intend to make an abstract photo. To me, it was more like some short glimpse into the very young universe. Meanwhile I look at my photo as a collection of colours and highlights without any subject. One might the picture turn around, and it remains still the same, doesn’t it?
Abstracting is in my opinion the distancing from subjects, and I think here on both sides: distancing within the image AND distancing while looking at a given image. An abstract photo therefore is not simply made by taking some unfocussed details nor by choosing some uncommon subjects. It has to be developed in nearly equal weights as well by the viewer as by the photographer. Abstracting is so to say not a result but a process.
The process of abstraction might be very similar to the process of recognition, since it reacts to the same question: what do I see? While recognition tries to find an answer (that is, identifying a subject) does the abstraction process go one step behind and avoids searching for an answer. Abstract viewing is just viewing, not reasoning; it is the presence of looking itself, it is some wandering of the eyes to and fro, here and there, across and align the picture. And while the eyes are still wandering, I listen to myself which spontaneous feelings and associations my mind responds from the picture onto me.
So, I think you can look with an abstracting view to any picture, be it a photo of a tree or even of an inscript on a tombstone. On the other hand – if you are not willing to make place and silence for an abstracting view, then any picture, any photo only seems like a kind of riddle to you until you guess or recognise the subject. In this case, I might give you a black field, and you say: I look into a tunnel by night or at a square from your chess board or something like this. You hereby would only repeat the known and not go for the unknown.
For the purposes of this contest I wish for me and all contributors and all viewers the readiness of being part of and going within the abstraction process which is not determined by the images and which rules within our minds. Don’t let us be seduced to solve riddles like in Plato’s famous cave allegory! Let’s just check out what we like and what we don’t like, and let’s be surprised by the found or open answers on this question.
On the issue of perception.
My question is different: what do I feel?
We are all different and the exchange of our impressions is very, very interesting.
By the way, in my opinion, the wandering of the gaze is not the completely lost connection with the object.
This were my first words before posting. But I came to the thought: no feeling before seeing.
Yes, it is! And we can try to balance on the borders between philosophy, psychology, and aesthetics (of perception).
I agree. Completely losing the connection with the object could destroy the perception itself. Our minds are "pre-determined" to seek objects behind the shapes and colours - otherwise our anchestors would not have survived... But in aesthetics, we are able to play around with this perceptional structure. And "arts" like to break them into pieces - for a moment, for a while.
You are a great conversationalist! Your thoughts are very voluminous and informative, they have a lot of philosophical view. Thank you!
Thanks for appreciating!
Ich habe eine interessante Definition von Abstraktion gefunden. Es hat einen Punkt darin, den ich fettgedruckt habe
Die abstrakte Fotografie sollte Sie also zu Überlegungen führen, die nicht direkt mit dem zusammenhängen, was auf dem Foto abgebildet ist. Es ist eine Art Assoziationsspiel. :)
Я нашёл интересное определение абстракции. В нём есть момент, который я выделил жирным шрифтом
Таким образом абстрактная фотография должна приводить вас к рассуждениям, которые непосредственно не связаны с тем, что изображено на фотографии. Это своего рода игра в ассоциации.
Sehr schön! Ja, das ist es! Wer spielt es? Ich denke, zwei Spieler: der Fotograf und der Betrachter.
Das ist etwas zu allgemein formuliert. Wenn meine Überlegungen, meine Assoziationen abschweifen, dann ist das Foto deswegen noch nicht abstrakt. Ein Foto von einem Panther in einem Käfig zum Beispiel würde möglicherweise zu vielen Überlegungen über Gefangenschaft oder über Art-gerechte Tierhaltung führen, obwohl das Foto überhaupt nicht abstrakt wäre.
Very nice! Yes, it is! Who plays it? I think two players: the photographer and the viewer.
That's a bit too general. If my reflections, my associations digress, then the photo is not yet abstract because of that. A photo of a panther in a cage, for example, would possibly lead to many thoughts about captivity or about species-appropriate animal husbandry, although the photo would not be abstract at all.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
I agree, any photo can cause associations that are abstract from its essence. But this may not happen.
If the photo pretends to be an abstraction... the absence of abstract associations will not be in her favor.
The very essence of abstraction (as a philosophical technique) implies some further reflection, a deeper immersion in the image.
Maybe the key point of abstract photography is to create some kind of image?
Which photo pretends to be an abstraction? I think: none! A photo or any image is not able to pretend something, since it is showing something.
But while by photographing you collect some information through a lense, your painting or drawing would not be bound on such circumstancies. So, a painting or drawing really can be abstract in this, that it shows no object outside itself. That is no pretending to be abstract.
Pretending to be an abstract image comes through context only, I believe. So it is me, the photographer, who pretends to show an abstract photo. My pretention can be denied by guessing what I shotted, and if not, my pretention could be denied by the simple fact that I must have shotted something.
In painting an abstract image, there is no possibility like the above: if I smash together some colours, no one will be able to assure, that I painted an object. The abstraction from objects is "static" (in contrary to the "dynamic" and communicative play between photographer and viewer).
Another question is on the aesthetics: which picture is valuable? This is hardly to predict; it depends on the richness of shapes, colors, and associations and therefore it is again in the communicative and dynamic play between creator and viewer.
I remember that I had once photographed a tree in a small hollow and you saw the world tree denting the earth with its weight.... ;-)) Abstraction too. No abstraction without imagination...?
Ich erinnere mich, daß ich einmal einen Baum in einer kleinen Senke fotografiert hatte und Du sahst den Weltenbaum, der mit seinem Gewicht die Erde eindellt... ;-)) Auch Abstraktion. Keine Abstraktion ohne Phantasie...?
Imagination is not the same as abstraction is.
But maybe both go always hand in hand as twins.