Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikonites
Weekly Photo Challenges
Voting for Sep. 18 - 24 Weekly Challenge: "Black and White Abstract"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dangerspouse" data-source="post: 713387" data-attributes="member: 46690"><p>Hi Nestor - I understand what you're saying, but my own definition of "abstract" differs somewhat from yours (unless it's a translation error on my part from what you've written). </p><p></p><p>I agree with your definition that "abstract" is<em> de facto</em> not "representative". However, patterns and lines have been used by abstract expressionists for some time. In fact my own entry in this challenge - a macro shot detail of my Movado watch - was inspired by Hilma Af Klint Svanen's "Abstract Circles", a very famous abstract piece (and one of the earliest):</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]321961[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>There are patterns (circular) and lines through them, but it is universally considered an abstract work. So when I was viewing the photos on offer here, that was not a consideration for me. </p><p></p><p></p><p>For myself, I thought some of the entries did not perhaps meet the criterion of "abstract" because they were clearly identifiable objects, sometimes a section, sometimes a close-up, but identifiable nonetheless. As such, to my understanding they fell into the definition of "representative" art, not "abstract". </p><p></p><p>But again, I certainly understand the point you are making.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dangerspouse, post: 713387, member: 46690"] Hi Nestor - I understand what you're saying, but my own definition of "abstract" differs somewhat from yours (unless it's a translation error on my part from what you've written). I agree with your definition that "abstract" is[I] de facto[/I] not "representative". However, patterns and lines have been used by abstract expressionists for some time. In fact my own entry in this challenge - a macro shot detail of my Movado watch - was inspired by Hilma Af Klint Svanen's "Abstract Circles", a very famous abstract piece (and one of the earliest): [ATTACH=CONFIG]321961._xfImport[/ATTACH] There are patterns (circular) and lines through them, but it is universally considered an abstract work. So when I was viewing the photos on offer here, that was not a consideration for me. For myself, I thought some of the entries did not perhaps meet the criterion of "abstract" because they were clearly identifiable objects, sometimes a section, sometimes a close-up, but identifiable nonetheless. As such, to my understanding they fell into the definition of "representative" art, not "abstract". But again, I certainly understand the point you are making. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikonites
Weekly Photo Challenges
Voting for Sep. 18 - 24 Weekly Challenge: "Black and White Abstract"
Top