Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/08/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 8/14/03 12:40:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, mark@rabinergroup.com writes: > 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. - ------------------ Pollock did away with form in any representational sense. He didn't do away with meaning. The only difference between looking at a Picasso and a Pollock is that the viewer must come up with his or her own interpretation of the Pollock canvas. You can see Pollock's work as pure decoration, eye drama, the pleasure of sensing texture and color for their own sake. Pollock doesn't bend you mind to any idea but your own. Quite an accomplishment. I sometimes see the night sky as a Pollock-like image. The natural question is: can photography simulate non-objective art? In the purest view, no. Whatever you photograph has some sort of form, whether you recognize it for what it is or not. I suppose you could play the non-objective game with printing paper or a digital sensor by feeding it unpredictable frequencies. Just one man's opinion. br - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html