Of the comments from the Forum and elsewhere about my Shadow Abstract
photograph, Chris' comments are the most interesting and provocative.
To me, they raise the question of what, exactly, is a photograph --
even a photo, say, of a chair. Clearly the photo "of a chair" is not
a chair, but it's one representation of a chair. So, without getting
into mumbo jumbo, the photo already is an abstraction. (Let's not
delve into terminology like "chairness" -- ugh!) Already, the
contacts of nerves (and whatever else) is testing patterns,
configurations, and associations, presumably mostly in the brain but
who knows where else? The result is what we understand to be an image
of a chair. In some cultures, however (I think I'm remembering
correctly), the photo would not be recognizable as a chair; that is,
the association between the physical chair and the photo would have to
be learned.
Then, what we call "abstraction" in art is really further
abstraction. And as Chris says "abstract" was alway "of" something so
it was not really abstract. In my photo, the ironwork (there are no
stairs but I don't know what the structure is) itself is the reality,
the shadow thrown on the building is already one level of abstraction,
and my isolating the iron work and the shadow from the rest of the
photograph is yet another level.
Now I have to admit that all the above was actually played out in my
mind because Chris put music -- quite correctly -- into the same arena
for examination. And although the medium is different, I can find
analogies (music is an active concern of mine) between music and
photography/painting/etc. Really powerful ideas, but tomorrow is
another day. . .
There are different forms for both music and abstract art; some forms
are meant to be imitations of reality, and some forms depend on
relationships within the piece of work. Both sometimes refer to
standard modes and sometimes actively disobey the rules of those
modes. There is no disgrace or apology necessary for having a
different conception of any art; it especially helps artists when
different perceptions of there art come into light.
In brief :)
-yoram
On Aug 29, 2010, at 6:53 AM, Chris wrote:
The PhotoForum members' gallery/exhibit space was updated AUG 28,
2010.
Authors
with work now on display at: http://people.rit.edu/andpph/gallery.html
include:
Elson T. Elizaga - Molt
Yoram Gelman - Shadow Abstract II
Dan Mitchell - Monkey orchid
Trevor Cunningham - cactus miniature
Lea Murphy - Joshua, four and a half years old, face
studies
Andrew Sharpe - Papua New Guinea totem
Christopher Strevens - Lonely
John Palcewski - Look, But Don't Touch
Mark Harris - Felicia at the Desk
Michael Hughes - The first taste
[Chris]
I particularly liked this week's gallery. The first four, show no
human
understanding, . . . .. The Shadow
Abstract could be stairs, I recall that for a long time I did not
understand
"abstract" photography as it was always "of" something so it is not
abstract. I never really understood abstract art either but I think
I am
getting the handle now. It is sort of the "essence" of a thing
without being
a thing or just lines and splodges. I had the same problem with
music as it
is not the sound of anything real but it is a real sound. Now I just
enjoy
it. Music has no meaning for me as abstract art has no meaning for
me. I try
to make the image into something, the submission by Gelman looks like
stairs. . . . .
Christopher Strevens ARPS.
