Real Abstract

If you've been a reader for a while, you've probably noted my fascination with photographing the abstract patterns that result from the interplay of water and light.  If these were painted, would they be masterpieces of abstract art?  Or should I just leave them as photos?  Something to think about.  While some have been altered using Photoshop, others are straight out of camera, or have only been "auto- leveled."   (For those of you not familiar with PS, "auto levels" is just a standard adjustment meant to correct color and contrast to "normal".)  The variations in pattern, color, and form never cease to surprise and amaze me.

This one has had nothing done to it except auto levels, I swear.  Freaky, huh?  If I saw this without knowing what it was, I don't think I would ever guess it was water.

Again, just auto levels...

When I look at these, I know beyond any doubt that I can never create anything so beautiful.  Who do I think I'm kidding, calling myself an artist?  On the other hand, maybe I should paint them; it would be a challenge, and probably lots of fun.  But there they are, already.

Another Baby Step and More Possibilties

I've been engaged in some artistic explorations lately, in hopes of stumbling onto a new artistic path, which I discussed in more detail in a previous post. I feel like I've been hopping willy-nilly from one idea to another, but I guess that's okay for now.  Here's the result of my last couple of days of exploration.

I was just looking at some scraps I had laying around; this was a piece that I cut off the original piece that became the Buddha "Paradox" piece.  I'm not sure if that made sense, but I can't think of a better way to put it.  As I was thinking, "should I pitch this scrap or keep it?", I suddenly began to see a strange sort of landscape image in it.  So, why not?  I scribbled a bit here, liked it, and scribbled a bit there; I glued on some bits of map and other papers, and added some more color, and... a kind of semi-abstract imaginary landscape emerged.

It seems to be an amalgamation of all the ideas I've been playing with over the past year or so:  the collages made from more collage-y things (as opposed to just my monotypes); the maps from my "Traveler's Tale" series (which isn't finished yet, btw); the landscapiness from my monotype collages; and a bit more of an abstract quality.  Also, it occurs to me that my trip to the Rocky mountains last summer has impressed itself  on my subconscious more strongly than I realized; I can see the shapes of the Rockies in some of these landscape elements, for sure.

I'm intrigued, and could maybe see myself doing a series of these.  If I do, I think they would need to be larger, with more saturated colors, and perhaps pushed even more toward abstraction.  What do you think?

Water Abstraction

I've been absent from blog-world for a while, deciding instead to focus on some other things.  I'll be sharing these with you soon, but right now have lots of pots on the stove, so to speak.  In the meantime, I'm going to share something that doesn't require me to take new photos!

As I noted a couple of posts ago, I've become obsessed with water as a source of abstract images.  I realized that I'm amassing quite a large collection of these photos at this point, and thought it might be fun to put together a slide show.  I hope you enjoy it!

Are you sick of these yet?  I promise this is it....unless, of course, I take more photos...

Abstraction Distraction, part 2

I have to agree with all of you very perceptive people who responded to Abstraction, part 1 by saying that labels aren't important, which was exactly my point.  Here are some photos that look somewhat abstract; they are, however, pictures of real objects.  Some of the images have been modified using Photoshop.  I hope you enjoy them!

 

 

 

  

  

  

I think you can figure out what most of these are, but if not, let me know!  Ooooh...I just had an idea...Remember that game (in magazines or something) where you try to guess what something is by seeing a little piece of it?  Uh-oh, there I go, thinking again...

Abstraction, part 1

I was getting ready to post some 'abstract' photos, when I started thinking, Are these legitimately abstract? After all, they are real things...What does that word really mean?  What makes a work abstract, or not?  Is there a line between abstract art and representational art, and, if so, where is it?  (Okay, you're probably thinking I should stop listening to the voices in my head, right?)

When I post work on my artspan website, I have to choose labels for each piece, such as medium, category, and whether it is abstract or representational (there are no other choices).  I always click 'representational' because my work does refer to actual things, though they may not be realistically depicted.  I do that because I assume that what they mean by 'abstract ' in this case would be work consisting of, say, colored stripes, for instance.

"

No, 3, 1949  by Mark Rothko

In art school, we were taught to call this type of work "nonobjective", meaning it was not based on any real object.  Abstract work, however, is based on something real, or at least the idea of something real.  Here's how Wikipedia defines abstraction in general:

"Abstraction is the process or result of generalization by reducing the information content of a  concept or an observable phenomenon, typically to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose." 

  

Wikipedia's words of wisdom on abstract verses nonobjective art:  "Strictly speaking, it refers to art unconcerned with the literal depiction of things from the visible world -it can, however, refer to an object or image which has been distilled from the real world... Artwork that reshapes the natural world for expressive purposes is called abstract; that which derives from, but does not imitate a recognizable subject is called nonobjective abstraction."

Clear as mud, right?  So, basically, abstraction has the intended purpose of paring something down to its essential nature; artists such as Cezanne and Picasso spoke of this as a goal. 

"Art is the elimination of the unnecessary."  -Pablo Picasso

 

 Desmoiselles  D'Avignon by Pablo Picasso

Of course, I'm simplifying the concept (abstracting it, so to speak!) significantly so as not to get bogged down too much in semantics.  The truth is, though, that the distinction between realism, abstraction, and non-objective abstraction is artificial from a practical standpoint, because it is not possible to draw a line where one ends and the other begins. 

For instance, is this abstract or realistic?   Hmmm... there are some pretty realistic things in there, but how realistic do they have to be in order to be 'realistic'?  (Huh?)

  Moon Shadows  by Sharmon Davidson

And what d'you reckon about this one?  Still, some recognizable stuff here, but what about that thingy with all the circles?

Kalachakra Matrix by Sharmon Davidson

  

A little more abstract, perhaps even verging on non-objective?  But couldn't those be mountains... with a purple sun... or maybe not...?

 Transformation 28   by Sharmon Davidson

 

Even a photograph is not completely realistic; as we know, there is much compression and distortion (of color, form, size, etc.) involved when a 3-dimensional scene is translated onto a 2-dimensional plane.   

I believe that over time, the term "abstract art" has come include artwork that looks as if it's "unconcerned with the literal depiction of things from the visible world -it can, however, refer to an object or image which has been distilled from the real world."  Which is why my photos, even though they are pictures of real things, could be considered abstract.   

My conclusion, then, is that these terms are meaningful only in a relative sense.  It brings up such questions as, "How abstract is it?"  It's like trying to determine how unified a piece of art is, or how well composed.   Where's the ruler for measuring that?

Stay tuned for part 2, in which I actually get to the aforementioned photographs!