• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

What is the definition of abstract photography/art?

DLibrach

New member
When people find out that I am a photographer, they often inquire as to what type of photography I do. For the most part I say I'm an art photographer. When they ask what I specialize in, I say "abstract photography". That usually ends the conversation which is a good thing since, to be honest, I don't really know what the definition of 'abstract photography/photographer' really is! :) Or for that matter, the difference between 'modern' and 'contemporary' photography/photographer?

I use the term 'abstract' out of a process of elimination. I'm not a 'landscape' photographer, nor a 'nature' photographer, or a 'portrait', 'wedding', 'product', 'food' photographer', or even a 'photo journalist' or any of the other terms that I've come across. Yes, I enjoy dabbling in more than a few of those areas too but it does not make up the bulk of my portfolio.

It's not a question of "Who am I?" or "What am I?" (that's a conversation best left for a therapist. LOL) and I've never been one for labels nor will never allow myself to be pigeonholed into one particular area. However it would be nice to be able to provide and educated reply when the conversation continues after they ask "And what does that mean?".

I'm sure there is no simple or direct answer, but it would be nice to hear your thoughts none the less.

Cheers,
David
 

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
Varied too

I say that I have several specialties from Fine Art to Travel to People, Weddings, Events and Portraits. I don't want to be only categorized as one kind of photographer. I have done some product work and am working on a commercial contract for some advertising stuff too.

As far as abstract, that is why I say fine art...sometimes is abstract and some times it's not.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi David,

I don't think abstract defines your work as far as you have shown it here and on your website. I'd say your work is documentary/street photography as you try to record people in their milieu. Abstract is when one does not need the specific details to put across an idea or feeling. The gestalt of the matter is given by the shapes, colors, balance, tension and other elements but not the specificity the a product or architectural picture would need or the romantic edge that a portrait might have added to their identifying features. It's beyond that. We leave reality at the beginning of the runway as we get airborne.

Your work is grounded in people's faces and how they work in their environment.

Asher
 

DLibrach

New member
While I agree that the majority of my work shown here is of the more journalistic variety or of traditional landscapes, I would beg to differ when it comes to what's on my website.

I tend to share in forums the type of images that you mention simply because they are more easily identifiable and I receive much more constructive feedback. I find that most simply do not relate to abstract imagery (assuming I'm correct in my own personsal definition of abstracts) and either simply do not get it and don't reply or they simply can't stand anything that doesn't fit into more of a traditional mold and their replies tend to be quite ride and snarky. Of course that has been my experience in other forums as I'm sure it would not be the case here.

I have been fortunate to sell some prints and work closely with a distributer in the states that sells my work to interior designers on canvas. The other week for example I sold two 40x60 canvas prints. All of those sales is what I would consider to be of an abstract design and that is the style in which my heart is in. I have never made a sale of any of my documentary work or of landscapes.
That being said I don't want to turn this into a what am I or what am I not conversation. Rather I would like to get a better undestanding of what the definition is of abstract, modern and contempory photography is.

I'll write more when I get home (I'm currently writting this on my crackberry while I wait for my laundry to be done) and could even provide exmple of work for further clarification. In the meantime if anyone has any links to websites of abstract, contemporary or moden photographers maybe a visual reference would help me in my quest for a definition.


Thanks
David.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
In the meantime if anyone has any links to websites of abstract, contemporary or moden photographers maybe a visual reference would help me in my quest for a definition.
Hi David,

This subject was part of an important thread. It started when Harvey Moore posted a picture of a flower as "Abstact". There was an objection to that term, Harvey was miffed but the ensuing discussion was very good. It got me to look at what is meant by "abstract" in the national galleries.

The thread is found here.

Asher
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
David,
Most of the images I've seen of yours are not at all "abstract" by any common definition. They are principally just details of objects or scenes.

I hope the thread that Asher mentioned does not get rejuvenated. It very nearly repelled me to the point of no return.
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
I hope the thread that Asher mentioned does not get rejuvenated. It very nearly repelled me to the point of no return.
Hi Ken,

The thread is still there but I have put a lock on it to prevent further posting. It would be advisable to leave it on its own after 1.5 years and start afresh with the discussion in a new thread. I am not looking forward to having any discussions with such a bad tone again here in OPF and I will certainly moderate where and when necessary. Mind you, I am not referring to the subject of the discussion but to how it has been conducted back then.


Cheers,
 
Last edited:

DLibrach

New member
Sorry the last thing iwanted to do was rehash a hot topic or one that caused a lot of problem. I'll leave sleeping dogs be.

Ken. Thanks for your input on my work. This is my problem. If it isn't abstract than what is it? How do I define it to the general public? I would like to believe that I don't have to buy I feel the reality is such that I need to. Especially as I make the transition to devoting most of my time to earning income through my work and greater exposur.

David

Ps. I have extemely thick skin so 3 don't take offence to anything personal. Cut me away.....
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
Sorry the last thing iwanted to do was rehash a hot topic or one that caused a lot of problem. I'll leave sleeping dogs be.
..
Hi David,

It isn't the topic which has caused the problems, it was the tone of the discussions. There is no need to leave any sleeping dogs be as such. It is still a very interesting topic and when discussed in a civilized way, we all shall learn from each other. So as far as I am concerned, feel free to ask any questions and discuss things further. You are officially encouraged to do so ;-)

Cheers,
 

DLibrach

New member
David,
Most of the images I've seen of yours are not at all "abstract" by any common definition...

So I guess that brings me back to what I was looking for. What is the "common definition" that you refer to? I'm not looking to debate its validity, just looking for a definition. :)


Hi David,
....So as far as I am concerned, feel free to ask any questions and discuss things further. You are officially encouraged to do so ;-)

Cheers,

Thanks, Cem. :)
 

DLibrach

New member
Alright, maybe this is an identity thing for me. LOL.

I would like to present three images of mine that I think represent who I am (personality, vision...etc) and where my passion lies. How would these be categorized? Even if you ignore the whole representation thing, where would these images fit into the lovely boxes that we like to categorize our images in to?

1.

334076252_qzpMV-L-3.jpg


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

2.

257777585_Y5WAf-L-3.jpg

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.












3.


291578123_YNGLL-L-3.jpg








Asher, I added the extra white space as I know that helps when looking at them individually ;-)


Thanks,
David
 
Last edited:

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
Alright, maybe this is an identity thing for me. LOL.

I would like to present three images of mine that I think represent who I am (personality, vision...etc) and where my passion lies. How would these be categorized? Even if you ignore the whole representation thing, where would these images fit into the lovely boxes that we like to categorize our images in to?
If finding an appropriate niche is important to you, then maybe you can start reading here and expand from there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painting#Western_styles

If all else fails, you can still call yourself a contemporary abstract expressionist photographer (this is meant as a joke and not to demean you or the real contemporary abstract expressionists out there).

Cheers,
 

DLibrach

New member
If all else fails, you can still call yourself a contemporary abstract expressionist photographer

LOL. That would have me even more confused.

Actually, that wikipedia link might give me more of an idea of what I'm looking for. Thanks, Cem for the link.

David

PS: And like I said previously, don't worry about me. I was by no means offended or felt demeaned by your comment. Now, for the real "contemporary abstract expressionist photographer" out there, them might be some fighting words....
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
David; The images you posted above are also "details", not abstracts.

Definitions can be a bit mushy, particularly since the term "abstract art" became a mostly derogatory phrase since the late 1950's in the wake of prominence of works by artists such as Jasper Johns, Joan Miro, Jackson Pollack, et.al.. Today the term "abstract" really isn't used often within the art world, probably because, among the general public, it became so synonymous with "bullshit" . (i.e. It hurt sales.) Generally, however, a work can be considered "abstract" if it's largely disconnected from referencing a specific subject. (Ex: I recently saw a rather large painting by a new-ish artist that consisted of nothing more than a red dot in the lower left corner of a solid blue field. That was "abstract"....and it was also $92,000.)

Due to it's intrinsically documentary nature you'll not find much photography that's truly "abstract". You have to really unrecognizably schmutz-up images to get there...at which point it's no longer photography.

My suggestion is to abandon your obsession to categorize your stuff. It's just stuff. If you just can't sleep with this just call it "conceptual" (the new-age artsy basket term). Leave it to those selling your stuff to categorize it in whatever manner produces the most sales.
 

DLibrach

New member
David; The images you posted above are also "details", not abstracts......

.....My suggestion is to abandon your obsession to categorize your stuff. It's just stuff......

Upon further contemplation, I've taken your advice Ken. I did read up some more about abstract art (including the references provided in this thread) and other genres. As someone who did not receive a formal education in the subject, I found it quite informative and enlightening.

Armed with this new knowledge, I will agree with you that my work is not 'Abstract' in the true sense of the word. As to what exactly is my work? I've stopped trying to catagorize it. I simply photograph what my world looks like. It is what it is and others will decide for themselves how/if it should be catagorized.

Thanks, everyone.

Cheers,
David
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
That's a very healthy perspective. Categorization can lay psychologically restrictive tracks that can unnecessarily cause you to produce only work that's similar to what you've already done or to what you believe is expected within that category.

Or within a particular medium. Don't discount the opportunities to work in different media, such as drawing, painting, or even sculpture. It can be extraordinarily liberating and productive, for example, to try to transfer your vision and concepts into other media even if photography remains your home medium.

The late Charles Sheeler was perhaps one of the best examples of just such a multi-media artist in the modern period. For inspiration I highly recommend the book "Charles Sheeler: Across Media". It was created to accompany a spectacular exhibit of this relatively obscure artist's work.

The bottom line: Don't live in a prison unless you're afraid to go outside.
 

DLibrach

New member
Thanks again, Ken.

.....Or within a particular medium. Don't discount the opportunities to work in different media, such as drawing, painting, or even sculpture. It can be extraordinarily liberating and productive, for example, to try to transfer your vision and concepts into other media even if photography remains your home medium...

Feeling the need for something more organic and looking to get my hands a little more dirty, I took an oil painting course at our art university last spring and I can cofirm how 'extraordinarily liberating and productive' it has been. There are things that I can express in my painting that I cannot in my photography as well as the other way around. However there are still quite a few similarities and they definitely feed off of each other. I would also love to try sculpting although for the time being, I think I'll just concentrate on translating my world/thoughts into a 2D format as thinking in a 3D environment is beyond my abilities....for now.

David
 
Top