'Abstract' photography - definition and examples

"Abstract" is usually opposed to "representational" or "figurative" in art. You might say that an "abstract" image only represents its own form, and that form might in some way "represent" some larger concept (e.g., in the way that Malevich's _Tumbling Cube_ might be said to represent "instability"), but it doesn't represent an object (like, say, the Eiffel Tower).

Some works (Andy Warhol's Brillo boxes, for example) raise the question of what is abstraction. You might say that such works tend to be "figurative" on a literal level, but they are not really about the thing they are a figure of.

Dave, in the post above has defined it pretty darn well. I would suggest one change or variation to help further - the use of the word "form" could be changed to "idea" - although it is a game of symantics. The difficulty in abstract art is that "form" or "idea" can be or is rather individualized. To really hit the "home-run" in this area one must pick the "form" or "idea" which the marjority of people can relate to or understand. Easier said than done. The "clue" is the title of the photo, print or painting, otherwise, as Dave states the image is just "representational" or "figurative". It is similar to humor. I don't think "props" will work - the better approach is to look at life through a filter - decided what the filter is and that is your photo. I can't do much better than that.

Objective abstract art will present a recognizable subject in an unusual way. Non-objective abstract art will present lines, form and colors full of light and energy that flow from an non recognizable subjec

Why talk about it when you can do it?

The Wall, Copyright 2000 Jeff Spirer

It can be done with black and white too...

Pollock, Copyright 2001 Jeff Spirer

jeff, the color shot is beautiful, i'm sure it would get rated about a 3 on the critique forum though... what a place... sigh...<br>

here's an abstract view and orientation of a still somewhat recognizable subject<br>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=175608&size=md"><br> copyright aaron hochman 2000<br>

here's one i don't think people like, they don't bother to rate it, or comment anyway <img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=232625&size=lg"><br>

this is actually the same subject as the one above, just lit and framed differently less abstract i think, but still an abstract view and setting for a common subject

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=232785&size=md"><br> copyright aaron hochman 2000

I have found, especially here but with general audiences as well, the abstract and non-picturesque need to be prepared for the viewer. They can'tjust look at it and react naturally to it. There seems to be a prevailing notino that an image has to be "of something" for it to be truely great. I disagree and much of my work it not of something. Sure, I ain't going to sell much of it to stoack, nor will it get a rating of 10 on the critique forum, but it is much more satisfying than making personal copies of real-life things I have already seen in books.

With non-traditional images, the viewer should be prepared to see them. That is, they need to see them in context of a larger body of work, either related or just siilar. A single image is just that; with multiple images or a story behind the image (i.e. text explaination) the image can be better digest by the viewer.

Janice - I'd recommend making a quick review of the history of abstract painting before you set into this. Abstraction's been much more fully explored in painting than in photography.

One photographer that you really should check out, though, is Aaron Siskind. Compare his photographs to the paintings by Franz Kline and Robert Motherwell. He worked mainly with walls and graffiti (similar to Jeff's excellent work above). Also, he worked with a square format, which I think works really well for this type of abstraction - it pulls the photograph away from its traditionally representational associations.

I think that it's more rewarding, challenging, and interesting to search out and find abstraction in your immediate environment than to construct it on a table with brightly colored objects and reflective mylar (or whatever).

Another body of work that I'd suggest you take a look at is Robert Frank's post 1970's stuff (look for his book: "Moving Out"). He's not really into abstraction, but he uses photography as a tool for personal, non-representational, personal expression by using collage, text, and other tools. At this point, the photography is working in the same space as painting. It's like Robert Frank and Robert Rauschenberg (the first a photographer, the second a painter) met someplace in the middle and shared ground.

I think the way to think of this is this: there is a thing called photography (which is what is discussed here and has its own set of values: sharpness, etc., and IS an art and a craft) & there is such a thing as using photography as a TOOL in the artist's tool box. I think that abstract photography belongs to the latter. There is a point where the simple fact that image comes from a photographic process is irrelevant (take Andy Warhol, for example: he was not a photographer, but he did use photography as a tool). Another artist that might interest you is Robert Heinecken, who uses photography and photographic processes to create images from collage, television, and other sources (mainly from mass media) - interesting stuff (recent monograph is published by the Museum of Contempory Art in Chicago).

When you get into abstraction: DROP whatever values you aspire to in your photography and think purely in terms of form and color, and composition. The language of abstraction is purely itself and has nothing to do with photography per se. The camera is merely a tool that offers you some control.

Final 2 points:

1. I'd recommend using black and white film because color introduces yet another variable. Black and White will allow you to concentrate purely on form and composition.

2. The qualities of abstraction - a concern with form and composition - are present in all photography and working with abstraction will increase your ability to put together representational photographs. In the photograph below, the subject is visible: an orchid pot. However, I think of this as an abstract image, the fact that it shows an orchid pot is irrelevant to me.

There is probably a subject that you already enjoy shooting. Use that as a take-off point. But rather than try to stump the viewer with the "can you tell what this is" shot, try to isolate the essence of the subject.

As a motion blur affectionado, I can recommend this too! Moving either the camera or the subject can easily make the very common near unrecognisable. But, of course, this can easily introduce a "random factor" into the photos, which you may or may not like.

Abstracts are about lines and shapes. If it is recognizable as an object - it is not an abstract. If it is not recognizable, but you get the "aha - I would have never guessed it" after it's explained to you - then it's not an abstract either. Of the examples posted above, I'd consider only Jeff Spirer's abstracts. Of course, nobody is going to stop you from taking a portrait and calling it "abstract".

Aaron's architecture photo is lovely!!! But it reminds me more of Magritte or Escher, than of any of the abstract painters. I second the advice to study abstract paintings!!!

Another example. I have one or two more in my folders if you're interested. Might even upload a few more if you want! =)

Of abstract art, Al Capp (of Li'l Abner fame) said:..........."It's a product of the untalented, sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered." While this is often the case, I don'tfully agree. Pure form, texture, line, and color appear innature everywhere, and man has always responded to it favorably.

I think most of the above posts have covered a lot of ground in determining what qualifies as abstract. My own $.02 is to take an ordinary object and focus on some single aspect that defines it. Here is a shot I contributed to a class when we were shooting abstracts.

What a great thread; I'm really enjoying everyone's images. To me, abstract is non-representational. In other words, the subject is not easily identifiable.

All good answers above! What it is, isn't. What it might be, might be.

"Holy Family" copywrite: Steve Bingham

I have been to many museums around the world and seen so many abstracts that made me say, wow! my three year old niece does work just like this. And I think that maybe its true in a way. Because most artist retain a bit of that child like awe with the world around them. I know that I lost mine and cannot come close to anyting resembling my nieces work using canvas and oil. However found abstract in nature I can capture on film and hopefully recapture some of that lost awe.

Aaron -- isn't that first photo the entrance foyer of the new Getty Center?

The "Guess What?" shot is either an electric razor head or aheater panel.

This is a great thread. I agree about Aaron Siskind - the master of B/W Abstract. Also some Westons (Edward & Brett) are very abstract in nature.

I love to do abstract. Usually a closeup that when taken out of context conjurs up all sorts of things. I did a workshop on Ellis Island in 1984 with the NPS. Our job was to document the buildings before they were restored. All day Sat & Sun for six weeks. The first three we did what the NPS assigned us - the last three were our own. Everyone else was doing architecture - I did the paint on the walls and the dead pigeons that I found. I have attached an essay I did on that here.

I also put up two rather fast and crude scans of some old abstract work here:

http://www.rcodaphotography.com/grain(new).jpg

http://www.rcodaphotography.com/garagepaterson.jpg

Rich

P.S. Jeff - Love that photo! - Rich

Thanks for the excellent answers so far, and for all the photos that have been posted. It’s been good to see examples of both B&W and colour. Jonas – yes I enjoyed your photos of motion blur (street lights) and would like to see more, thanks for your offer.

“Objective abstract art will present a recognizable subject in an unusual way. Non-objective abstract art will present lines, form and colors full of light and energy that flow from an non recognizable subject”(John Womack). Thanks, this was a good explanation of the two ‘types’ of abstract I have come across. I have a few photos of the ‘objective’ type, and have enjoyed looking at others’ work – unusual architectural angles for example, which show a two-dimensional view emphasizing lines, shapes or colours etc. We will be mostly experimenting with the ‘non-objective’ type on the night. Some comments I received recently made me think only this second type was accepted as true abstract. Thanks to Barry and Andreas for further clarifying this – it seems the best ‘abstracts’ are when the subject of the photo is not recognisable.

“try to isolate the essence of the subject” (Scott Blair) “take an ordinary object and focus on some single aspect that defines it” (Matthew Butkus) Thanks for these comments. Our aim for the night is to stimulate people’s imaginations and have them go away with ideas they can take further in their own time.

Touchel Berne: thanks for your recommendations of abstract artists and photographers – I will see if my local library has any of their work. Re using B&W film – we have already decided to use colour film on the night, but as I mostly do B&W at the moment, I will attempt some abstracts in that medium too. “I think that it's more rewarding, challenging, and interesting to search out and find abstraction in your immediate environment than to construct it on a table with brightly colored objects and reflective mylar (or whatever)” Our starting place will be ‘table-top’ photography, we are limited by time and venue, but it will be good to have a variety of ideas and recommendations for much wider use in the future – thanks! (I think I agree with you)

I’m interested in the concepts of ‘representational’ vs. ‘non-representational’ as commented on by David Goldfarb and Miguel Azar (and others?). This is still very new to me. Just out of interest, which way do you (personally) go about it – do you take/make an abstract photo of something that catches your eye, then afterwards title it according to what you see/ feel when you view the result, or do you have a specific theme in mind and deliberately set out to portray it in an abstract form?

Barry – I really like the lines and shapes in your photo ‘Guess what?’ although can’t identify the subject. Steve Bingham – I enjoyed your excellent shot and title. I was working on this reply when yours was posted. Richard – your project on Ellis Island sounded a very interesting and worthwhile one. Thanks for sharing some of your work.

Again, thanks all for your thoughtful (and thought-provoking) answers. I’m looking forward to more! Janice.

i think it's interesting to go to the dictionary now and then at times like these

abstract

ab·stract adjective [áb strakt , ab strákt ]

1. not concrete: not relating to concrete objects but expressing something that can only be appreciated intellectually

2. theoretical: based on general principles or theories rather than on specific instances abstract arguments

3. ARTS nonrepresentational: not aiming to depict an object but composed with the focus on internal structure and form

4. MUSIC conceptual: used to describe music that is intended to have no programmatic or emotional content

5. with irregular pattern: decorated with irregular areas of color that do not represent anything concrete

6. impersonal: emotionally detached or distanced from something

ab·stract·ed [ab stráktd ] adjective

1. preoccupied: in deep thought and not concentrating on surroundings

2. taken out of something: extracted or separated from something

i think definitions #3 for abstract, and #2 for abstracted, lend credence to the idea that something can be recognizable, and yet still abstract.... when i choose to frame a selected portion of the architects design, and essentially create a new design, which doesn't represent the building itself, or a part of the building seen as it normally is, but purely the lines and shapes and forms, then i have abstracted it, separated it from it's context

andreas, thanks for the compliment :)

mark, yes, that's the roof of the atrium in the getty lobby

I consider abstracted colors, or form from very ordinary things to be abstract photographs. So normal stuff done kinky is abstract for me. Then there is exotic stuff and weird stuff.

I’m interested in the concepts of ‘representational’ vs. ‘non-representational’ as commented on by David Goldfarb and Miguel Azar (and others?). This is still very new to me. Just out of interest, which way do you (personally) go about it – do you take/make an abstract photo of something that catches your eye, then afterwards title it according to what you see/ feel when you view the result, or do you have a specific theme in mind and deliberately set out to portray it in an abstract form?

Personally? I'm an academic, and writing theory and criticism is my day job (mostly in relation to literature, but I do some work on literature and the visual arts). I try not to worry about such things when I'm making photographs. If something seems meaningful to me, I might make a photograph. I'll think about what it actually means later.

To those who asked "why talk about it when you can do it," I would say that these are two very different kinds of skills, and they are both worthwhile and interesting, and they can inform each other. Most artists in all media are not terribly articulate about what their works mean, and even if they are able to speak at length about what their work means, at best they only offer more text that is subject to further interpretation.

I do not have any personal photos or advice that I can contribute, but I did a couple of searches in Photo.net Gallery and came up with the following, which are more or less abstract:

• Lights by Marcello Iannotta
• Alaskan sand abstract by Joe Murray
• River Rock abstract2 by Joe Murray
• Abstract Painting by Hide Ishiura
• Urban Nights by Joe Perrigoue
• ... A confusing mess of lines ... by bryan zmijewski
• Leading Lines by Jeff Alu

The three searches I did were for "abstract", "lines", and "color". The search on color is useless due to the search including the film field as part of the text included in the search (more than 2 million matches.) Other good search words might include shapes, specific colors, shadow, dream, night, day, dark, light, ...

While I agree in spirit, I do not agree on semantics. To me, the term "abstract" means an abstraction of something, be it trees represented by primary-colored rectangles with black outlines or tints and shades represented by little dots placed together (like Seurat). The first abstract painters were the impressionists, that is, they painted "impressions" (or abstractions) of their subjects to evoke something other than the actual object or scene.

Taken this way, most photography is abstract, but not non-representational, as the image is made by placing colors (or specks) close together to give the illusion of different colors or shades and tints (in the grain or dye clouds).

Now, I like to get out of my ivory tower now and then ;-) and I realize that most folks use the term "abstract" and "non-representational" interchangably, which is fine, until a long discussion about it evolves. Then we're forced to use different words and define them in the way we're using them.

It's difficult for me to use the term "non-representational" when writing about photography, because its very nature is representaional, albeit abstract.

Clear as mud? ;-)

I think of abstract as art that is not represented traditional. Whether its distorted, shot as a close up or far away etc. For example if the object is a cup and it is not easily recognizable as one that?s an abstract. John Canning's image a tree is a beautiful piece. Choosing to make it black and white gives the tree more texture and life. Making nature abstract for me is more interesting.