Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/08/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Stieglitz used clouds to represent abstractions and then called them Equivalents. I saw a whole bunch of them a few months ago. By themselves: the only way I'd seen them before, I thought why?, but in a group, I began to get an idea of what he was after. On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 17:34 Australia/Melbourne, Mark Rabiner wrote: > Aquiles Almansi wrote: >> >> Love the quote! It seems to be the source of Strunk >> and White, the 40-pages Bible of "correct" English. >> >> But I'm not sure that it's really the same point. If >> you take out the adjectives, you minimize the >> probability of adding "noise", i.e., of leading people >> to assume that you see things in ways you don't >> necessarily do. That is, the probability of leading >> our audience to put things in the wrong context. >> >> What "abstractists" have in mind is a different thing: >> eliminating all possible context, so that all meaning >> is lost and only "pure form" remains. Sounds a little >> crazy, but it's logically possible. >> >> It is, of course, the exact opposite of what >> "documentary" photographers have in mind. >> >> Since I think that Chris is nicely documenting an >> interesting (for me) fact in his neighborghood, I >> suggested he takes the "abstract" thing off the title. >> It just gives the wrong context to his photograph, >> i.e., it adds "noise" in the sense I defined above. >> >> Achilles >> >> <Snip> > > > What I remember my art and photography teachers saying was that an > abstraction was not representing or imitating external reality or the > objects of nature. It was not a small somthing out of context. It was > put together from the artists brain alone. > In other words if you're looking at a bunch of pink paint on the canvas > with black dots its not a small part of a watermelon. > It's just a bunch of pink stuff with black dots because that's what the > artist felt like painting. Don't even ask the artist if it reminds him > of watermelon or if he likes Watermelon. > > When we zoom way in on a piece of watermelon with our lens so you can > see the fur on the seeds and the pink stuff looks like huge clumps to > the extent that people don't have a clue what they are looking at we > have not created an abstraction. > We've created a SUBSTRACTION. That's mainly what cameras do and is a > photo thing. Abstraction is a painting or sculpture thing. > > Now i imagine we can throw a bunch of pigment down on the floor or do a > Jackson Pollock thing and shoot that. I'd think that might be an > abstraction. Actually come to think of it it would be a photograph of > an > abstraction. I say that doesn't count. The abstraction is the work of > art you've created on the floor. Copying it is another thing. > > No I'm happy with my substractions. I love shooting things out of > context so you don't know exactly what your looking at but you like the > textures, shapes, patterns perhaps color and not in that order. > > IF we get frustrated with the fact that photography records the things > around us, what is there and is not a made up Fig Newton of our own > imaginations then we can take up a painting, or sculpture course or > just > figure it out for ourselves. > Make sure all your brushes have red dots on them. > > Mark Rabiner > Portland, Oregon USA > http://www.rabinergroup.com > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > Alastair - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html