I'm testing my grasp of this here. I would say that the first of the following two photos is not pictorial abstraction and the second one is.
MobiWorkshop MW6 - Pictorial Abstraction
- Thread starter FundyBrian
- Start date
-
- Tags
- abstraction mobiworkshop
Very well said and illustrated.
Agree.
Looks reasonable to me.
We could label your photo as John’s Pleasing Image if you like. No, I’m not looking for labels and it isn’t necessary for the photos to be pleasing, unless that is the aim of the photographer. They may want to make the image displeasing or provoking instead. It is also possible the photographer didn’t have any emotional thoughts about the image besides being fascinated with the shapes or patterns produced.
The main thing is that in this particular thread we are exploring images that were seen and composed by the maker as abstract right from the beginning and the photos don’t require any additional manipulation to be abstracts. How they fit into the larger sphere of abstract photography might be an interesting discussion but not essential here.
I would say it depends on whether you saw it as an abstract at the time you pressed the shutter. Whether other people see it as an abstract might be some measure in how successful you were in making an abstract image out of what you had to work with.
Crossing the Line:
After reading all of the discussions about this topic I started to think about that transition from an ordinary subject to abstract. At what point does it cross the line into abstract? Since this thread is mostly about Pictorial Abstraction I decided to start with subjects at a landscape scale.
Here is a landscape/seascape in which sand ripples are featured as a main in element, but it still remains a scenic photo.
I think you cross the line from landscape to abstract when you see sand ripples as lines and shapes and the fact they are sand ripples becomes secondary.
The question remains, how far from real does an abstract need to be? Sometimes just taken out of context is enough. Some people would rather that the source material for an abstract is completely unrecognizable
Instant Abstract.
You get instant abstracts when you photograph something that is already an abstract and all you have to do is frame it and press the shutter. You don’t actually create the abstract since it is already abstract to begin with. In this case the pattern is a chemical stain on an old piece of photographic print paper.
Removing context.
If I had not made a close up to remove the outer parts of the subject (context) you would instantly recognize this as a jellyfish washed up on the beach. In fact, if you have seen enough jellyfish washed up on the beach you still might recognize it as such.
If you could see more of this subject you would instantly see it as a big lump of green glass (about 25 lb big). It is only made into an abstract by removing the context.
Unfamiliar Subject.
This is a completely straight photo and even if you knew the particular sculpture/water feature at the restaurant you still might not recognize it just because of the viewpoint and framing.
Familiar object but seen in a different way. This is the plastic liner from a box of chocolates, but turned upside down. It had a lovely gold finish and picked up reflections nicely.
After reading all of the discussions about this topic I started to think about that transition from an ordinary subject to abstract. At what point does it cross the line into abstract? Since this thread is mostly about Pictorial Abstraction I decided to start with subjects at a landscape scale.
Here is a landscape/seascape in which sand ripples are featured as a main in element, but it still remains a scenic photo.
I think you cross the line from landscape to abstract when you see sand ripples as lines and shapes and the fact they are sand ripples becomes secondary.
The question remains, how far from real does an abstract need to be? Sometimes just taken out of context is enough. Some people would rather that the source material for an abstract is completely unrecognizable
Instant Abstract.
You get instant abstracts when you photograph something that is already an abstract and all you have to do is frame it and press the shutter. You don’t actually create the abstract since it is already abstract to begin with. In this case the pattern is a chemical stain on an old piece of photographic print paper.
Removing context.
If I had not made a close up to remove the outer parts of the subject (context) you would instantly recognize this as a jellyfish washed up on the beach. In fact, if you have seen enough jellyfish washed up on the beach you still might recognize it as such.
If you could see more of this subject you would instantly see it as a big lump of green glass (about 25 lb big). It is only made into an abstract by removing the context.
Unfamiliar Subject.
This is a completely straight photo and even if you knew the particular sculpture/water feature at the restaurant you still might not recognize it just because of the viewpoint and framing.
Familiar object but seen in a different way. This is the plastic liner from a box of chocolates, but turned upside down. It had a lovely gold finish and picked up reflections nicely.
Last edited:
Unfamiliar viewpoint.
Looking straight up at the frame of a teepee against an overcast sky.
Familiar object, unfamiliar angle. A regular pull-down window blind, but photographed from the edge.
The unfamiliarity can be further enhanced by some overexposure.
Exploring familiar objects.
Looking through the base of a drinking glass. A lot of the colour comes from the placemat underneath and other things at the table but the optical distortions come from the glass itself. Just slight changes in angle changed everything.
Looking straight up at the frame of a teepee against an overcast sky.
Familiar object, unfamiliar angle. A regular pull-down window blind, but photographed from the edge.
The unfamiliarity can be further enhanced by some overexposure.
Exploring familiar objects.
Looking through the base of a drinking glass. A lot of the colour comes from the placemat underneath and other things at the table but the optical distortions come from the glass itself. Just slight changes in angle changed everything.
The What’s-It?
Making close-up of familiar objects can be great fun.
If you have ever looked closely at the reflectors on your car you might recognize this.
But maybe one of the clear reflectors would not be so familiar.
Everyone has seen condensation inside the plastic wrap covering leftovers taken out of the fridge. Cranberries makes for nice colour.
From here we could easily slide into Nature Close-up Abstractions. That area of exploration is huge, but perhaps getting too far away from Pictorial.
I know cityscapes are full of good abstraction material. The edge of a stairway against something with other lines beyond that. Endless. I’m mostly surrounded by trees.
Making close-up of familiar objects can be great fun.
If you have ever looked closely at the reflectors on your car you might recognize this.
But maybe one of the clear reflectors would not be so familiar.
Everyone has seen condensation inside the plastic wrap covering leftovers taken out of the fridge. Cranberries makes for nice colour.
From here we could easily slide into Nature Close-up Abstractions. That area of exploration is huge, but perhaps getting too far away from Pictorial.
I know cityscapes are full of good abstraction material. The edge of a stairway against something with other lines beyond that. Endless. I’m mostly surrounded by trees.
A nice progression, all interesting.
This problem of trying to decide where something fits when entering a contest is exactly where the Pictorial Abstraction category came from.
rizole
It's not even my banana.
Red and Black.
Lovely textures and detail!
Fringe
rizole
It's not even my banana.
Bodywork.
