For me, it can still be an abstract even if the subject is recognizable, but the point of the image needs to be shapes, colors and textures. A recognizable object, but shot in an abstract manner. (My entry is not any recognizable item however.)
For me, it can still be an abstract even if the subject is recognizable, but the point of the image needs to be shapes, colors and textures. A recognizable object, but shot in an abstract manner. (My entry is not any recognizable item however.)
For me, it can still be an abstract even if the subject is recognizable, but the point of the image needs to be shapes, colors and textures. A recognizable object, but shot in an abstract manner. (My entry is not any recognizable item however.)
It's ABSTRACT blur, so why did so many photographers feel the need to point out what it is with their title? Irked
I get the feeling you have an obsession with this, just a hunch :)
Well in his defense. Having the subject mentioned in the title did remove a lot of the mystery and fun of exploring the abstract part of the image when I went through the voting as well.
It could be a result of voting/commenting behavior in other challenges. Abstracts are usually a hard sell in a non abstract challenge and voters have sometimes commented that they would like something better if they knew what it was. So i suppose some people are adressing that with their titles.
Hey there are some amazing images in this challenge and well supported as well. relly enjoyed
viewing the entries. Well done every one.
BTW Mine is doing better than I expected not a ribboner but I enjoyed visualising, setting up and actually taking something that came out somewhat near my thoughts
Very happy with my shot, as it shows motion blur and is abstract.
I felt the same way but got a hit that it does not meet challenge though still maintaining my lowest score ever :)
Received a similar hint myself, suggesting my entry was not abstract.
Yup -- at 4.6, two comments saying it's not abstract. I appreciate the comments greatly, because I would have thought it was simply because they didn't like the photo. However, both liked it, they just didn't consider it abstract.
I appreciate this, because my definition of abstract was much more liberal, and I see where they're coming from. And in looking up the definition in a couple of places, the definition seems to fit with their comments.
hmmm... looks like I'm not going to get that 4.... Currently it's at 5.06
The classic definition of "abstraction" is to reduce a thing to its essential elements. I have earned money doing abstracts of books. They allow busy people to more thoughtfully put together reading lists on an unfamiliar topic, for example. This insistence by so many people that an abstraction is, by definition, unrecognizable seems way off base to me.
The classic definition of "abstraction" is to reduce a thing to its essential elements. I have earned money doing abstracts of books. They allow busy people to more thoughtfully put together reading lists on an unfamiliar topic, for example. This insistence by so many people that an abstraction is, by definition, unrecognizable seems way off base to me.
Will all due respect Bear ... this challenge is not "Abstract" alone, it is "Abstract Motion Blur", and it's about Photography. For many, Abstract by itself does mean a mostly unrecognizable object/thing/subject, and then when you toss in the concept Motion Blur if gets even more complicated. I can easily see how it is interpreted that this challenge should consist of unrecognizable items.
To reassure myself I did what anyone can do and Googled the subject. Many opinions out there for sure.
Here's a definition that seemed close to right for me in regards to "Abstract Photography" in general (not addressing the "Motion Blur" aspect of added complexity).
From DesignYourWay:
"Abstract photography is a process of using colors and patterns combined to create an image, with no true meaning or no clear subject involved. Abstract photography is not necessarily going to mean the same thing to everyone, it can be something different for each of us. Abstract photography leaves more to the imagination and helps us concentrate on texture and color rather than the whole subject."
Another example by Ron Bigelow (perhaps with a better attached article):
"There is no standard, universally accepted definition of abstract photography. Actually, it is not easy to create a clear-cut definition of an abstract concept. However, for the purposes of this article series, it is necessary to create a definition in order to put some boundaries around the topic. This makes it easier to determine what falls within the domain of the subject matter. Thus, for this article series, abstract photography will be defined as photography that:
Does not represent the subject in a literal way.
Communicates primarily through form, color, and curves rather than image detail."
"...Does not represent the subject in a literal way.
Communicates primarily through form, color, and curves rather than image detail."
I find nothing to argue with in this statement. That's exactly what I consider the process of abstraction to be. As in: the sense that a stick figure drawn by a child is a pure abstraction of the human form.
Where I'm taking issue here, is with those who would say "if it's recognizable it's not abstract". Nonsense! ESPECIALLY when we're dealing with "abstract motion blur", where if you push "non-recognizable" far enough you end up with nothing but blurry, amorphous images that owe nothing to the SOURCE of the motion.
"...Does not represent the subject in a literal way.
Communicates primarily through form, color, and curves rather than image detail."
I find nothing to argue with in this statement. That's exactly what I consider the process of abstraction to be. As in: the sense that a stick figure drawn by a child is a pure abstraction of the human form.
Where I'm taking issue here, is with those who would say "if it's recognizable it's not abstract". Nonsense! ESPECIALLY when we're dealing with "abstract motion blur", where if you push "non-recognizable" far enough you end up with nothing but blurry, amorphous images that owe nothing to the SOURCE of the motion.
... and you see that's where we disagree substantially. Abstract does not need a "source". That's what makes it abstract. If you want to debate this and post STRONGLY one way, then the other viewpoints should be allowed to stand on their merit as well.
Art is opinionated. So be it.
However, if all points aren't allowed, then hide yours as well.
