Steve'sDigicams

calr · Jan 20, 2005, 11:20 PM

Nikon D100, Sigma 28-70mm, built-in flash.

Cal Rasmussen

Alan T · Jan 21, 2005, 1:48 AM

Wow! Your sequence of three (especially the first) expresses what *I* thought this challenge was about.

Wonderful, wonderful shots! Congratulations.

Alan T

ferny · Jan 21, 2005, 4:15 AM

A toilet handle?

Hmm... I'm not seeing an abstract with this one either. It's another shot of an object to me.

Just to point out, that's to me. I'm not having a go or saying it's not an abstract. Just that I, personally, am not that sure.

calr · Jan 21, 2005, 11:04 AM

Ferny, I think it's time for me to speak out on this. I am starting to take offense on some of your comments.

There is abstract and then there is abstract. If you are looking for surrealistic art such as Picasso or Monet, these pictures don't fit. None of the pictures posted fit that description. If you are looking for something that is a small part of a larger scene but not enough to completely reveal the "bigger picture", these pictures qualify. Some of my earlier posts obviously don't fit this description. The dog's view of the kitchen is a whole scene.

You need to broaden your definition of abstract. The term has different meaning to different people and you seem to be applying your own definition without considering other interpretations.

You do great work here and I enjoy working with you but in this case, I think you need to be open to other interpretations of abstract.

Cal Rasmussen

DigiK · Jan 21, 2005, 1:16 PM

It seems we voted 95% in favor of critique on this forum, andI appreciate Ferny'sefforts.Also, you specifically titled your posts "ToFerny" soI don't think you should be offendedby such critique, especially when you already know the person's point of view. I agreeyour pictures are not abstract. Here are some definitions of abstract art from the web:

any art in which real objects in nature are represented in a way that wholly or partially neglects their true appearance and expresses it in a form of sometimes unrecognizable patterns of lines, colors and shapes.
www.worldimages.com/art_glossary.php

painting or sculpture which simplifies, distills, or distorts figures from the real world. Abstract art emphasizes forms, lines, and colors.
www.humanities.eku.edu/Glossary.htm

A style of art that shows objects as simple shapes and lines, often geometric, with emphasis on design.
http://www.buena-vista.k12.va.us/Art...ryofterms.html

Art which does not represent reality as we see it. This kind of work is characterised by a strong dependence on what appears to be accident and chance. It is believed that the spontaneity of the artist's approach to their work draws inspiration from and releases the creativity of their unconscious minds. It takes its inspiration from the real world but uses patterns for expression. For the onlooker, these patterns represent independent relationships with no reference to the original source of inspiration.
http://www.soulkurry.com/artgallery/..._glossary.php3

Any art in which the depiction of real objects in nature has been subordinated or entirely discarded, and whose aesthetic content is expressed in formal pattern or structure of shapes, lines,and colors. Sometimes the subject is real but so stylized, blurred, repeated, or broken down into basic forms as to be unrecognizable.
http://www.khsd.k12.ca.us/bhs/Perry/...vocabulary.htm

ferny · Jan 21, 2005, 2:44 PM

You shouldn't be offended by anything I say Calr. I try to make it clear every time that what I have to say is just from my point of view and that I am hardly an expert in any subject. All I can say is what is in my head. If you want me to stop posting in your threads then I can do that.
As I've said before, I can't write down on paper what I consider to be an abstract. For me it's more a case of looking at what is in front of me, then deciding. I tend to lean towards the pattern side of things, however. Going along with the examples DigiK has searched and posted for us.

calr · Jan 21, 2005, 2:57 PM

No need to stop responding to my posts, Ferny. We are all entitled to our opinions and some of us (points to self) even learn from them! I have been seriously into photography for about 20 years but this has been one of the more challenging topics I have worked with.

Digik, your posting and links are helpful.

I have one more "subject" I have have been wanting to try for some time. I think it will meet with everybody's approval, even mine.

Stay tuned...film at eleven.

Cal

Jan 21, 2005, 1:16 PM	#5
DigiK Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 25	It seems we voted 95% in favor of critique on this forum, andI appreciate Ferny'sefforts.Also, you specifically titled your posts "ToFerny" soI don't think you should be offendedby such critique, especially when you already know the person's point of view. I agreeyour pictures are not abstract. Here are some definitions of abstract art from the web: any art in which real objects in nature are represented in a way that wholly or partially neglects their true appearance and expresses it in a form of sometimes unrecognizable patterns of lines, colors and shapes. www.worldimages.com/art_glossary.php painting or sculpture which simplifies, distills, or distorts figures from the real world. Abstract art emphasizes forms, lines, and colors. www.humanities.eku.edu/Glossary.htm A style of art that shows objects as simple shapes and lines, often geometric, with emphasis on design. http://www.buena-vista.k12.va.us/Art...ryofterms.html Art which does not represent reality as we see it. This kind of work is characterised by a strong dependence on what appears to be accident and chance. It is believed that the spontaneity of the artist's approach to their work draws inspiration from and releases the creativity of their unconscious minds. It takes its inspiration from the real world but uses patterns for expression. For the onlooker, these patterns represent independent relationships with no reference to the original source of inspiration. http://www.soulkurry.com/artgallery/..._glossary.php3 Any art in which the depiction of real objects in nature has been subordinated or entirely discarded, and whose aesthetic content is expressed in formal pattern or structure of shapes, lines,and colors. Sometimes the subject is real but so stylized, blurred, repeated, or broken down into basic forms as to be unrecognizable. http://www.khsd.k12.ca.us/bhs/Perry/...vocabulary.htm

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Jan 20, 2005, 11:20 PM	#1
calr Moderator Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Beaverton, OR Posts: 8,466	Nikon D100, Sigma 28-70mm, built-in flash. Cal Rasmussen

Jan 21, 2005, 1:48 AM	#2
Alan T Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chester, UK Posts: 2,980	Wow! Your sequence of three (especially the first) expresses what I thought this challenge was about. Wonderful, wonderful shots! Congratulations. Alan T

Jan 21, 2005, 4:15 AM	#3
ferny Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,866	A toilet handle? Hmm... I'm not seeing an abstract with this one either. It's another shot of an object to me. Just to point out, that's to me. I'm not having a go or saying it's not an abstract. Just that I, personally, am not that sure.

Jan 21, 2005, 11:04 AM	#4
calr Moderator Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Beaverton, OR Posts: 8,466	Ferny, I think it's time for me to speak out on this. I am starting to take offense on some of your comments. There is abstract and then there is abstract. If you are looking for surrealistic art such as Picasso or Monet, these pictures don't fit. None of the pictures posted fit that description. If you are looking for something that is a small part of a larger scene but not enough to completely reveal the "bigger picture", these pictures qualify. Some of my earlier posts obviously don't fit this description. The dog's view of the kitchen is a whole scene. You need to broaden your definition of abstract. The term has different meaning to different people and you seem to be applying your own definition without considering other interpretations. You do great work here and I enjoy working with you but in this case, I think you need to be open to other interpretations of abstract. Cal Rasmussen

Jan 21, 2005, 2:44 PM	#6
ferny Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,866	You shouldn't be offended by anything I say Calr. I try to make it clear every time that what I have to say is just from my point of view and that I am hardly an expert in any subject. All I can say is what is in my head. If you want me to stop posting in your threads then I can do that. As I've said before, I can't write down on paper what I consider to be an abstract. For me it's more a case of looking at what is in front of me, then deciding. I tend to lean towards the pattern side of things, however. Going along with the examples DigiK has searched and posted for us.

Jan 21, 2005, 2:57 PM	#7
calr Moderator Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Beaverton, OR Posts: 8,466	No need to stop responding to my posts, Ferny. We are all entitled to our opinions and some of us (points to self) even learn from them! I have been seriously into photography for about 20 years but this has been one of the more challenging topics I have worked with. Digik, your posting and links are helpful. I have one more "subject" I have have been wanting to try for some time. I think it will meet with everybody's approval, even mine. Stay tuned...film at eleven. Cal