Harvey Moore
New member
Abstraction
deleted.............
deleted.............
Last edited:
-
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!
Abstraction, Abstract: something real or not? :) An education on approach to art.
- Thread starter Harvey Moore
- Start date
- Status
Alain Briot
pro member
This is a flower, not an abstract.
Abstractions are images where the subject is not recognizable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_art
Abstractions are images where the subject is not recognizable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_art
Alain Briot
pro member
Actually it's a deleted post ;-)
Ben Lifson
New member
From “Abstract Art” in Modern Art 19th and 20th Centuries: Selected Papers by Meyer Schapiro, Paragraphs 1-3
Schapiro is universally acknowledged as one of the 20th century’s great art historians. This paper on abstract art is important to anyone wishing to know the history and meanings of abstraction. I’ll send 3 paragraphs a day until I come to the end.
Before there was an art of abstract painting, it was already widely believed that the value of a picture was a matter of colors and shapes alone. Music and architecture were constantly held up to painters as examples of a pure art which did not have to imitation objects but derived its effects from elements peculiar to itself. But such ideas could not be readily accepted, since no one had yet seen a painting made up of colors and shapes, representing nothing. If pictures of the objects around us were often judged according to qualities of form alone, it was obvious that in doing so one was distorting or reducing the pictures; you could not arrive at these paintings simply by manipulating forms. And in so far as the objects to which these forms belonged were often particular individuals and places, real or mythical figures, bearing the evident mark of a time, the pretension that are was above history through the creative energy or personality of the artist was not entirely clear. In abstract art, however, the pretended autonomy and absoluteness of the aesthetic emerged in a concrete form. Here, finally, was an art of painting in which only aesthetic elements seem to be present.
Abstract art had therefore the value of a practical demonstration. In these new paintings the very processes of designing and invention seemed to have been brought on to the canvas; the pure form once masked by an extraneous content was liberated and could now be directly perceived. Painters who do not practice this art have welcomed it on just this ground, that it strengthened their conviction of the absoluteness of the aesthetic and provided them a discipline in pure design. Their attitude toward past art was also completely changed. The new styles accustomed painters to the vision of colors and shapes as disengaged from objects and created an immense confraternity of works of art, cutting across the barriers of time and place. They made it possible to enjoy the remotest arts, those in which the represented objects were no longer intelligible, even the drawings of children and madmen, and especially primitive arts with drastically distorted figures, which had been regarded as artless curios even b y insistently aesthetic critics. Before this time Ruskin could say in his Political Economy of Art, in calling for the preservation of medieval and Renaissance works that “in Europe alone, pure and precious ancient art exists, for there is none in America, none in Asia, non in Africa.” What was once considered monstrous now became pure form and pure expression, the aesthetic evidence that in art feeling and thought are prior to the represented world. The art of the whole world was now available on a single unhistorical and universal plane as a panorama of the formalizing energies of man.
These two aspects of abstract painting, the exclusion of natural forms and the unhistorical universalizing of the qualities of art, have a critical importance for the general theory of art. Just as the discover of non-Euclidean geometry gave a powerful impetus to the view that mathematics was independent of experience, so abstract painting cut at the roots of the classic ideas of artistic imitation. The analogy of mathematics was in fact present to the minds of the apologists of abstract art; they have often referred to non-Euclidean geometry in defense of their own position, and have even suggested an historical connection between them.
Schapiro is universally acknowledged as one of the 20th century’s great art historians. This paper on abstract art is important to anyone wishing to know the history and meanings of abstraction. I’ll send 3 paragraphs a day until I come to the end.
Before there was an art of abstract painting, it was already widely believed that the value of a picture was a matter of colors and shapes alone. Music and architecture were constantly held up to painters as examples of a pure art which did not have to imitation objects but derived its effects from elements peculiar to itself. But such ideas could not be readily accepted, since no one had yet seen a painting made up of colors and shapes, representing nothing. If pictures of the objects around us were often judged according to qualities of form alone, it was obvious that in doing so one was distorting or reducing the pictures; you could not arrive at these paintings simply by manipulating forms. And in so far as the objects to which these forms belonged were often particular individuals and places, real or mythical figures, bearing the evident mark of a time, the pretension that are was above history through the creative energy or personality of the artist was not entirely clear. In abstract art, however, the pretended autonomy and absoluteness of the aesthetic emerged in a concrete form. Here, finally, was an art of painting in which only aesthetic elements seem to be present.
Abstract art had therefore the value of a practical demonstration. In these new paintings the very processes of designing and invention seemed to have been brought on to the canvas; the pure form once masked by an extraneous content was liberated and could now be directly perceived. Painters who do not practice this art have welcomed it on just this ground, that it strengthened their conviction of the absoluteness of the aesthetic and provided them a discipline in pure design. Their attitude toward past art was also completely changed. The new styles accustomed painters to the vision of colors and shapes as disengaged from objects and created an immense confraternity of works of art, cutting across the barriers of time and place. They made it possible to enjoy the remotest arts, those in which the represented objects were no longer intelligible, even the drawings of children and madmen, and especially primitive arts with drastically distorted figures, which had been regarded as artless curios even b y insistently aesthetic critics. Before this time Ruskin could say in his Political Economy of Art, in calling for the preservation of medieval and Renaissance works that “in Europe alone, pure and precious ancient art exists, for there is none in America, none in Asia, non in Africa.” What was once considered monstrous now became pure form and pure expression, the aesthetic evidence that in art feeling and thought are prior to the represented world. The art of the whole world was now available on a single unhistorical and universal plane as a panorama of the formalizing energies of man.
These two aspects of abstract painting, the exclusion of natural forms and the unhistorical universalizing of the qualities of art, have a critical importance for the general theory of art. Just as the discover of non-Euclidean geometry gave a powerful impetus to the view that mathematics was independent of experience, so abstract painting cut at the roots of the classic ideas of artistic imitation. The analogy of mathematics was in fact present to the minds of the apologists of abstract art; they have often referred to non-Euclidean geometry in defense of their own position, and have even suggested an historical connection between them.
Klaus Esser
pro member
Hi Ben!
That´s an interesting text. My English is a bit untrained - but i´ll try to say what i mean ;-) :
Photography is an abstraction as it is. When we speak of "abstraction" we often speak of an obvious "abstraction"which mean cubism or pointilism and so on.
The abstraction in photography i think is interesting just because it´s not so obvious.
Snapping a fragment out of a continuosly floating time and putting it from three dimensions onto a flat surface is a dramatic abstraction . . not to speak of transferring color into grayscale.
Selecting a viewpoint, perspective, lens charcteristic, exposure time, focus-depth - all is subjective and is an abstraction.
Regarding that, talking about photography in my eyes always is talking about philosophy and psychology.
best, Klaus
That´s an interesting text. My English is a bit untrained - but i´ll try to say what i mean ;-) :
Photography is an abstraction as it is. When we speak of "abstraction" we often speak of an obvious "abstraction"which mean cubism or pointilism and so on.
The abstraction in photography i think is interesting just because it´s not so obvious.
Snapping a fragment out of a continuosly floating time and putting it from three dimensions onto a flat surface is a dramatic abstraction . . not to speak of transferring color into grayscale.
Selecting a viewpoint, perspective, lens charcteristic, exposure time, focus-depth - all is subjective and is an abstraction.
Regarding that, talking about photography in my eyes always is talking about philosophy and psychology.
best, Klaus
For what its worth,
I never saw Harvey's image, entitled 'Abstraction'. If it a question of being picky over words and their meaning, then according to my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary, the first definition of 'abstraction' (Please note, that is not 'abstract art', or even 'abstract,' but 'abstraction') is ' the act or an instance of abstracting or taking away'. There is no mention of 'art' or 'abstract art', until about the fourth definition.
If you want to point out that someone is using the wrong definition, then it is probably best to see why they may in fact be using that definition, and indeed you may well find that their definition was in fact the correct one to describe what they were doing. Even if the definition is not the accepted definition, whatever that may be, generally with a little intelligence, you can see what it was meant to be.
As it is, this thread, indeed the forum as a whole has now become a slightly more annoying place to be.
This thread now shows no useful purpose, other than to show a few folks ability to look up definitions - incorrectly ;-).
Best wishes,
Ray
I never saw Harvey's image, entitled 'Abstraction'. If it a question of being picky over words and their meaning, then according to my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary, the first definition of 'abstraction' (Please note, that is not 'abstract art', or even 'abstract,' but 'abstraction') is ' the act or an instance of abstracting or taking away'. There is no mention of 'art' or 'abstract art', until about the fourth definition.
If you want to point out that someone is using the wrong definition, then it is probably best to see why they may in fact be using that definition, and indeed you may well find that their definition was in fact the correct one to describe what they were doing. Even if the definition is not the accepted definition, whatever that may be, generally with a little intelligence, you can see what it was meant to be.
As it is, this thread, indeed the forum as a whole has now become a slightly more annoying place to be.
This thread now shows no useful purpose, other than to show a few folks ability to look up definitions - incorrectly ;-).
Best wishes,
Ray
Alain Briot
pro member
I think it is important to know the history of art, and where photography fits in, or where the origin of some of the expressions we use is to be found. Ben's post is very helpful in this regard.
If someone posts a photograph for critique/feedback I take it for granted that they are expecting critique or feedback.
In this case my feedback is about the wide misuse of the word abstract when talking about photographs that are not abstract. There is something to be learned here and that is the purpose of my comment.
I am teaching.
If someone posts a photograph for critique/feedback I take it for granted that they are expecting critique or feedback.
In this case my feedback is about the wide misuse of the word abstract when talking about photographs that are not abstract. There is something to be learned here and that is the purpose of my comment.
I am teaching.
Hi Alain,
You are teaching nothing here. The word used was 'abstraction', at least that is all I see that is left of the post. And, what makes you think you are 'teaching'? I expect the idea was to comment on the photograph. Did Harvey, anyone, ask to be taught the correct use of english according to you? At least, if they wanted to learn, they could lookup words in Wiki, or even the papers by so-called art historians.
Do you really want this discussion to continue? I do not make my living by teaching art, I have nothing to lose, but the fact is, all I see is that you leapt at the chance, (as has Ben, but in a slower, more ponderous way, as usual drawing on the writings of dead people to back him up), in order to show how clever you are, and how stupid the op was in using the wrong word in describing what may or may have not been an image otherwise worthy of discussion.
Best wishes,
Ray
You are teaching nothing here. The word used was 'abstraction', at least that is all I see that is left of the post. And, what makes you think you are 'teaching'? I expect the idea was to comment on the photograph. Did Harvey, anyone, ask to be taught the correct use of english according to you? At least, if they wanted to learn, they could lookup words in Wiki, or even the papers by so-called art historians.
Do you really want this discussion to continue? I do not make my living by teaching art, I have nothing to lose, but the fact is, all I see is that you leapt at the chance, (as has Ben, but in a slower, more ponderous way, as usual drawing on the writings of dead people to back him up), in order to show how clever you are, and how stupid the op was in using the wrong word in describing what may or may have not been an image otherwise worthy of discussion.
Best wishes,
Ray
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Abstraction is not a "Real Thing" but not far off either! Abstraction just departs!
Ray,
You are funny, noting that Ben is drawing on the writings of dead people"! Well we do that since a lot of smart creative people unfortunately succumbed to a human malady, death!
You are correct implying that the term "Abstraction" is not a synonym of Abstract Art as it is recognized in the Art Academic Community. Abstraction is a process towards deriving something more abstract than the original state from which it is derived. Here an abstraction can have a degree of "abstractness" more or less conforming to something recognizable.
Of course, anyone posting here in this august forum, Photography As Art, is posting with the expectation as well as risk of critique. Still we can be considerate.
I can encourage posting by simply moving the thread to where it better belongs or even modifying the title. I do that all the time. That's how we work. There's hardly a week goes by when a moderator sees a thread that is presented in an awkward way. Beginner’s questions, portraits, sports and fashion all have their own place. The use of the word "Abstract" by many educated folk still includes primitive, abbreviated and symbolic forms.
My view of Abstract Art: This is an important term for academics, art historians, collectors and others who rely on that term to have a particular meaning of a movement where artists attempt to go beyond representing things.
In fact, by "Abstract", in Photography as Art, an art major would expect no reference to anything that did, does or would exist. The idea of "Abstract Art" in my mind is a useful conceit and approximation that has opened up the eyes of Western cultures to varied expression in representing familiar objects.
I really don't believe that much of anything can be really be devoid of reference to things important to us. This is because we have brains whose circuits have purpose that defines our condition, survival and character.
Even a drop of paint splattering on a surface is already non-abstract, as it is a drop of paint on a canvas.
However, the belief that abstract art might in fact be created is fine by me as a motivation for breaking barriers and openness to new experience.
So while "Abstract Art" might definite meaning, Abstraction has vulgar, common, conversational and non-academic meaning that is useful. For sure, the National Gallery of Art echoes Ray West's pragmatic approach, so perhaps he's giving them private lessons!
So let's not say that someone got the use of the term Abstraction wrong again! There can be recogizable form, as all the above examples show! Abstraction is a path not abstract, per se.
Asher
Ray,
You are funny, noting that Ben is drawing on the writings of dead people"! Well we do that since a lot of smart creative people unfortunately succumbed to a human malady, death!
You are correct implying that the term "Abstraction" is not a synonym of Abstract Art as it is recognized in the Art Academic Community. Abstraction is a process towards deriving something more abstract than the original state from which it is derived. Here an abstraction can have a degree of "abstractness" more or less conforming to something recognizable.
Of course, anyone posting here in this august forum, Photography As Art, is posting with the expectation as well as risk of critique. Still we can be considerate.
I can encourage posting by simply moving the thread to where it better belongs or even modifying the title. I do that all the time. That's how we work. There's hardly a week goes by when a moderator sees a thread that is presented in an awkward way. Beginner’s questions, portraits, sports and fashion all have their own place. The use of the word "Abstract" by many educated folk still includes primitive, abbreviated and symbolic forms.
My view of Abstract Art: This is an important term for academics, art historians, collectors and others who rely on that term to have a particular meaning of a movement where artists attempt to go beyond representing things.
In fact, by "Abstract", in Photography as Art, an art major would expect no reference to anything that did, does or would exist. The idea of "Abstract Art" in my mind is a useful conceit and approximation that has opened up the eyes of Western cultures to varied expression in representing familiar objects.
I really don't believe that much of anything can be really be devoid of reference to things important to us. This is because we have brains whose circuits have purpose that defines our condition, survival and character.
Even a drop of paint splattering on a surface is already non-abstract, as it is a drop of paint on a canvas.
However, the belief that abstract art might in fact be created is fine by me as a motivation for breaking barriers and openness to new experience.
So while "Abstract Art" might definite meaning, Abstraction has vulgar, common, conversational and non-academic meaning that is useful. For sure, the National Gallery of Art echoes Ray West's pragmatic approach, so perhaps he's giving them private lessons!
sourceNational Gallery of Art said:Abstraction
Painters and sculptors do not always strive to depict persons and objects realistically. Rather than imitate their subject's natural appearance, some artists deliberately change it. They stretch or bend forms, break up shapes, and give objects unlikely textures or colors. Artists make these transformations in an effort to communicate something they cannot convey through realistic treatment. Works of art that reframe nature for expressive effect are called abstract. Art that derives from, but does not represent, a recognizable subject is called nonrepresentational or nonobjective abstraction.
.............
Energized by new artistic possibilites, American artists synthesized European innovations into a variety of forms.
Lyonel Feininger, The Bicycle Race, 1912, National Gallery of Art, Collection of Mr. and Mrs. Paul Mellon
Lyonel Feininger's cubist constructions incorporate the color and movement typical of Italian futurism. Max Weber and John Marin fractured images and reassembled the faceted planes into dynamic compositions. The organic abstractions of Georgia O'Keeffe and Arthur Dove add a new dimension to familiar forms from the natural world.
Georgia O'Keeffe, Jack-in-the-Pulpit, 1930, National Gallery of Art, Alfred Stieglitz Collection, Bequest of Georgia O'Keeffe
Arthur Dove, Moth Dance, 1929, National Gallery of Art, Alfred Stieglitz Collection
Abstraction dominated American art beginning in the 1930s. Fleeing fascism, a wave of European artists and intellectuals emigrated to the United States, bringing with them avant-garde ideas and artistic approaches. Influenced by the émigrés, American artists became interested in Freudian and Jungian psychological theories that emphasized mythic archetypes, the unconscious, and non-Western imagery. Surrealist art embraced these new theories and tried to illustrate the workings of the unconscious mind.
Arshile Gorky, One Year the Milkweed, 1944, National Gallery of Art, Ailsa Mellon Bruce Fund, 1997 The Estate of Arshile Gorky / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York
Arshile Gorky's One Year the Milkweed combines biomorphic shapes reminiscent of animal or vegetal forms with loose veils of color to evoke an abstract pastoral scene.
So let's not say that someone got the use of the term Abstraction wrong again! There can be recogizable form, as all the above examples show! Abstraction is a path not abstract, per se.
Asher
Last edited:
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
In future, give the positive critique then your reservations and finally as a "BTW", correct any erros in syntax or definitions. The latter then is in its proper place.
Thanks everyone,
Asher
Thanks everyone,
Asher
Kevin Bjorke
New member
Ceci ne pas un hashpipe, yo
Having come to this thread late, with the pictures long gone, I can only say that there is no picture anyone could supply that could fill in the space of an invisible, forbidden, "abstraction."
Having come to this thread late, with the pictures long gone, I can only say that there is no picture anyone could supply that could fill in the space of an invisible, forbidden, "abstraction."
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Kevin,
The absence of Harvey's picture has a presence. This in itself is a hole in our being. It's defined by being deleted. It is an antithesis.
Asher
The absence of Harvey's picture has a presence. This in itself is a hole in our being. It's defined by being deleted. It is an antithesis.
Asher
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Sorry Asher
I have seen Harvey's image, and obviously it would have be an excellent visual support for this discussion....
Harvey can you repost this image please? It is right in the center of the above comments on abstract/abstraction.
Wether it is or not an abstract it is an interesting image to be shared and commented...
No need to change thread of place nor its title.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Agreed my friend Nicolas, the picture belongs right here! But why the "I'm sorry"?
I too would like to see this! So Harvey, let's have it back!
Asher
Michael Fontana
pro member
abstraction vs representation
abstraction within photography is a interesting question, as it rises the question of representation automatically, which is strongly inherent in photography (-->Roland Barthes, une chambre claire, et al)
Out of my biased p.o.v., abstraction - having its forerunner in the entire art history*- became evident in the 20th of the last century, with Malewitch, Moholy Nagy, Kandinsky, Mondrian, Hans Richter (Example: Rhytmus 21), but not Rodtchenko, as he had a political mission, therefore played on representation.
Interpreting them in a simply way: they shared with the dadaists the lack of representation, as a reaction to the terrible WW1, and welcomed the new freedom of expression, not as much as the italian futurist did, but still.
abstraction vs representation in photography is alwith a clash, as the "nature" of photographie - its reprensentation of a object beeing in front of a camera - is the antipode to the abstract concepts of - a example - Malewitch, this ending in the famous Black Square".
Interesting too: Paintings lost their needs of reprensentation, as a reaction of Niépce's invention of photography.
* = Are the paintings of Lascaux abstract? They' ve - in our understanding a lack of reprentation too, but.......
---------
Someone might correct me, if I'm wrong. English is far from beeing my first language, so take the ideas's
abstraction within photography is a interesting question, as it rises the question of representation automatically, which is strongly inherent in photography (-->Roland Barthes, une chambre claire, et al)
Out of my biased p.o.v., abstraction - having its forerunner in the entire art history*- became evident in the 20th of the last century, with Malewitch, Moholy Nagy, Kandinsky, Mondrian, Hans Richter (Example: Rhytmus 21), but not Rodtchenko, as he had a political mission, therefore played on representation.
Interpreting them in a simply way: they shared with the dadaists the lack of representation, as a reaction to the terrible WW1, and welcomed the new freedom of expression, not as much as the italian futurist did, but still.
abstraction vs representation in photography is alwith a clash, as the "nature" of photographie - its reprensentation of a object beeing in front of a camera - is the antipode to the abstract concepts of - a example - Malewitch, this ending in the famous Black Square".
Interesting too: Paintings lost their needs of reprensentation, as a reaction of Niépce's invention of photography.
* = Are the paintings of Lascaux abstract? They' ve - in our understanding a lack of reprentation too, but.......
---------
Someone might correct me, if I'm wrong. English is far from beeing my first language, so take the ideas's
Klaus Esser
pro member
Hello Alain!
"In this case my feedback is about the wide misuse of the word abstract when talking about photographs that are not abstract."
I personally know some famous art-photographers - one of them the "most expensive living photographers" (i like that words . .
), Andreas Gursky - and their perspective of photography as an abstraction of reality you can see in nearly every piece of their work.
Using photography as a "non-abstract" Medium to transport real views of objects or even people is something, i´m doing for about 30 years as an advertising photographer. With some success.
Working in a highly professionally and refined way of picturing objects, scenes and people learned me: there IS NO "not abstract" in photography.
Photography is NOT a REPRODUCTION of reality - it is always an interpretation of reality.
Therefore photography IS abstract. Some photographers use the very precision of high-resolution photography to show especially that.
I think, Asher´s example:"Even a drop of paint splattering on a surface is already non-abstract, as it is a drop of paint on a canvas" hits it: it´s not abstract. Abstraction is the intention behind it. As it is in photography.
Of course i know the conventional, academic, explanation of "abstract" - i don´t agree with that. I doubt that some "native" artist would describe his/her cave-paintings or pottery as "abstract" - it´s our cultural orientation which say "this is not recognizable - it´s abstract art" . . .
best, Klaus
P.S.: i find this a very interesting discussion - and i hope my english is good enough to express more subtle thoughts . . i´m not sure about this . .
"In this case my feedback is about the wide misuse of the word abstract when talking about photographs that are not abstract."
I personally know some famous art-photographers - one of them the "most expensive living photographers" (i like that words . .
), Andreas Gursky - and their perspective of photography as an abstraction of reality you can see in nearly every piece of their work. Using photography as a "non-abstract" Medium to transport real views of objects or even people is something, i´m doing for about 30 years as an advertising photographer. With some success.
Working in a highly professionally and refined way of picturing objects, scenes and people learned me: there IS NO "not abstract" in photography.
Photography is NOT a REPRODUCTION of reality - it is always an interpretation of reality.
Therefore photography IS abstract. Some photographers use the very precision of high-resolution photography to show especially that.
I think, Asher´s example:"Even a drop of paint splattering on a surface is already non-abstract, as it is a drop of paint on a canvas" hits it: it´s not abstract. Abstraction is the intention behind it. As it is in photography.
Of course i know the conventional, academic, explanation of "abstract" - i don´t agree with that. I doubt that some "native" artist would describe his/her cave-paintings or pottery as "abstract" - it´s our cultural orientation which say "this is not recognizable - it´s abstract art" . . .
best, Klaus
P.S.: i find this a very interesting discussion - and i hope my english is good enough to express more subtle thoughts . . i´m not sure about this . .
Hi Klaus,
I deleted your last message, because I guess you 'hit the button' twice. It often happens. If I see it, I normally hard delete it, but just in case you thought I was being 'off on one', I soft deleted it so you could see what was going on. Of course, what you say may well deserve repeating ;-)
wrt your english, usage thereof wrt subtle thoughts, looks OK to me, but then subtle is something that I am not ;-)
Best wishes,
Ray
I deleted your last message, because I guess you 'hit the button' twice. It often happens. If I see it, I normally hard delete it, but just in case you thought I was being 'off on one', I soft deleted it so you could see what was going on. Of course, what you say may well deserve repeating ;-)
wrt your english, usage thereof wrt subtle thoughts, looks OK to me, but then subtle is something that I am not ;-)
Best wishes,
Ray
Ben Lifson
New member
Goethe said
(and many agree) that
"He who knows only his own generation remains forever a child."
However,
Ko-Ko, the Lord High Executioner of Gilbert and Sullivan's operetta The Mikado includes in his "Little list/of society offenders who might well be underground / And who never would be missed" along with "pestilential nuisances who wrte for autographs--/All people who have flabby hands and irritating laughs.../"
"The idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone / All centuries but this, and every country but his own."
But then, the German Goethe and the Englishmen W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan are dead and of course Ko-Ko never existed.
Even so, they can't all be wrong. Maybe the truth and maturity lie somewhere in the middle? Being able to look at both the past and the present for their respective wisdoms, discoveries, truths, guidances, etc.?
Should we stop listening to, enjoying and learning from The Beatles because George Harrison and John Lennon are dead? Or Elvis Presley because he's dead? Or the dead Janis Joplin, Jimmy Hendrix, Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker, Duke Ellington, Vera Lynn, Ted Heath, Miles Davis, Buddy Holly and others in a list much, much longer than Ko-Ko-s?
Just because they're dead?
(and many agree) that
"He who knows only his own generation remains forever a child."
However,
Ko-Ko, the Lord High Executioner of Gilbert and Sullivan's operetta The Mikado includes in his "Little list/of society offenders who might well be underground / And who never would be missed" along with "pestilential nuisances who wrte for autographs--/All people who have flabby hands and irritating laughs.../"
"The idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone / All centuries but this, and every country but his own."
But then, the German Goethe and the Englishmen W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan are dead and of course Ko-Ko never existed.
Even so, they can't all be wrong. Maybe the truth and maturity lie somewhere in the middle? Being able to look at both the past and the present for their respective wisdoms, discoveries, truths, guidances, etc.?
Should we stop listening to, enjoying and learning from The Beatles because George Harrison and John Lennon are dead? Or Elvis Presley because he's dead? Or the dead Janis Joplin, Jimmy Hendrix, Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker, Duke Ellington, Vera Lynn, Ted Heath, Miles Davis, Buddy Holly and others in a list much, much longer than Ko-Ko-s?
Just because they're dead?
Klaus Esser
pro member
Thankk you, Ray for your kindness!
I had a little struggle with my net-connection - it got very slow for a moment and i thought it was broken and hit again . .
best, Klaus
Georg R. Baumann
Inactive
Sure not!
<smiles> I just took delivery of 155 CD's, the complete John Sebastian Bach.
Michael Fontana
pro member
I didn't knew, Bach was playing CD's > sigh<
Michael Fontana
pro member
fine, that's clear. Though, this doesn't implements photography to be abstract.
I think abstract is used in that thread with several different meanings/levels:
- the historical level, this movement in the 20th of the last century.
- the image - level itself, the "language" of a image.
Example: a photogramm is (like a camerashot) not a reproduction of reality, but mostly more abstract, than a "normal" shot.
Klaus Esser
pro member
"- the image - level itself, the "language" of a image."
Yes - but why divide the language of an image into "abstract" or . . what? What´s the opponent?
best, Klaus
Yes - but why divide the language of an image into "abstract" or . . what? What´s the opponent?
best, Klaus
Michael Fontana
pro member
maybe storytelling? anecdotic? Trying to be more real, than real? --> representation
As long as there will be art historians, we' ll have to live with these categories ;-)
As long as there will be art historians, we' ll have to live with these categories ;-)
Hi Ben,
I am glad to see you back again. I had just written a more lengthy rebuttal to your last missive, but when I returned from a five minute dog walk, we had had a power interruption, so luckily it was lost.
To summarise, I am far more interested in what you, Ben, have to say, your own thoughts, rather than lengthy quotations from others. A link to the text would be adequate to support your view, if I needed to check up the details of your references.
Put it another way - a teacher of five year olds may know more maths. say then a teacher in senior school, but it is taught differently. That is the skill.
With a more specific reference to your more recent post, directed at me, that meets my expectations more of a forum type posting, wrt quotes and your own views. By that I mean the amount of quotations and your own words are better balanced, and I guess the content too. However, it really sparks off yet another thread, perhaps to be restarted elsewhere, since it throws up some interesting concepts concerning the acquisition of knowledge, which on its own, is of no use, unless as a means to an end - 'book learning is no learning'.
It is quite possible for 'all of them to be wrong', at the most, they are expounding theories, and mankind is evolving.
An example, dragging in Georg's recent post here
Best wishes,
Ray
ps - this should have appeared just after Georg's post mentioned above, a few hours ago, but after sorting out some hardware problems, I see others have now posted. Ah well, serves me right. This is now my third attempt.... publish and be damned
I am glad to see you back again. I had just written a more lengthy rebuttal to your last missive, but when I returned from a five minute dog walk, we had had a power interruption, so luckily it was lost.
To summarise, I am far more interested in what you, Ben, have to say, your own thoughts, rather than lengthy quotations from others. A link to the text would be adequate to support your view, if I needed to check up the details of your references.
Put it another way - a teacher of five year olds may know more maths. say then a teacher in senior school, but it is taught differently. That is the skill.
With a more specific reference to your more recent post, directed at me, that meets my expectations more of a forum type posting, wrt quotes and your own views. By that I mean the amount of quotations and your own words are better balanced, and I guess the content too. However, it really sparks off yet another thread, perhaps to be restarted elsewhere, since it throws up some interesting concepts concerning the acquisition of knowledge, which on its own, is of no use, unless as a means to an end - 'book learning is no learning'.
It is quite possible for 'all of them to be wrong', at the most, they are expounding theories, and mankind is evolving.
An example, dragging in Georg's recent post here
Would Bach use more modern instruments, if he was alive today? Would he have written rap, or whatever? Would he have extended his music to encompass later mathematical concepts? Would he be happy with the standard of cd reproduction of his original sounds, or would he have said, 'mp3's on an ipod is good enough for me'.
Best wishes,
Ray
ps - this should have appeared just after Georg's post mentioned above, a few hours ago, but after sorting out some hardware problems, I see others have now posted. Ah well, serves me right. This is now my third attempt.... publish and be damned
Georg R. Baumann
Inactive
Sorry Harvey and others.... did not mean to let that slip from Abstraction and stuff.... but well, you know Alain....
;o)
;o)
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
The Music daughter topic is moved here.
Alain Briot
pro member
You know artists... by the way, I never intended for you to delete your post. Was just making a point about what I consider to be abstract. Nothing more. I have a pretty tough and thick "photographic skin" -I paid my dues you know, for quite a few years- and I say what's on my mind when it comes to commenting on photographs. My goal is to help.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Alain,
Harvey Moore started the thread posting a soft image, unusually lit, such that it appeared as a flower, not immediately but after a second look. Thus the image was not photographed to make a classic 2 dimensional representation of a flower, looking as close as possible to the real object. The photographer chose lighting conditions and character that made the flower look decidedly different and delicate. Thus the image departed from a depiction of reality to present a derived, more theoretical sense of the flower.
Given the subsequent discussion, do you still contend that it was incorrect to use the term Abstraction for this flower as your definition of Abstraction would always exclude Harvey's flower?
Again Harvey merely used Abstraction, not Abstract.
If abstraction was a perfect process there would be "The Abstraction" however, we know there are endless sibling abstractions of any object as they depart in different ways from what is the most realistic appearance. So "Abstractions" are many and must be indefinite and unlimited.
So there is no definite "Abstract" except an approach to becoming so.
Surely with the examples I have shown, for both Abstract and Abstraction that they are many accepted deviations from realistic representations so classified. In the cases I have chosen, the pictures show things represented in an unusual form, color, texture and context that departs somewhat from a realistic image of what is illustrated. The identities of these objects, however, are , like Harvey's flower, hardly "Abstract" according to the tenets of your Wikipedia's definition as they all are so recognizable!
Thus, to my mind at least, you must, by now, be persuaded to my point of view that we cannot be that narrow and dismissive.
If you are not so moved by my argument, then you must still feel that your Wikipedia reference trumps the National Gallery usage and so we must indeed exclude such a flower as Harvey initially shared.
More importantly it would mean that The National Gallery in Washington might need to revise their art classification scheme and nomenclature or else hire a new curator!
Asher
Harvey Moore started the thread posting a soft image, unusually lit, such that it appeared as a flower, not immediately but after a second look. Thus the image was not photographed to make a classic 2 dimensional representation of a flower, looking as close as possible to the real object. The photographer chose lighting conditions and character that made the flower look decidedly different and delicate. Thus the image departed from a depiction of reality to present a derived, more theoretical sense of the flower.
Given the subsequent discussion, do you still contend that it was incorrect to use the term Abstraction for this flower as your definition of Abstraction would always exclude Harvey's flower?
Again Harvey merely used Abstraction, not Abstract.
If abstraction was a perfect process there would be "The Abstraction" however, we know there are endless sibling abstractions of any object as they depart in different ways from what is the most realistic appearance. So "Abstractions" are many and must be indefinite and unlimited.
So there is no definite "Abstract" except an approach to becoming so.
Surely with the examples I have shown, for both Abstract and Abstraction that they are many accepted deviations from realistic representations so classified. In the cases I have chosen, the pictures show things represented in an unusual form, color, texture and context that departs somewhat from a realistic image of what is illustrated. The identities of these objects, however, are , like Harvey's flower, hardly "Abstract" according to the tenets of your Wikipedia's definition as they all are so recognizable!
Thus, to my mind at least, you must, by now, be persuaded to my point of view that we cannot be that narrow and dismissive.
Alain Briot said:
If you are not so moved by my argument, then you must still feel that your Wikipedia reference trumps the National Gallery usage and so we must indeed exclude such a flower as Harvey initially shared.
More importantly it would mean that The National Gallery in Washington might need to revise their art classification scheme and nomenclature or else hire a new curator!
Asher
Last edited:
- Status