The word "photography" derives from "painting with light". There all kinds of ways to paint with light and infinite interpretations of subject matter. Either you like it or you don't, but let's not waste time quibbling about whether it's "photography". And BTW, I think these particular abstractions from documentary reality have artistic merit.
Long exposure is not an end in itself; it’s simply a tool to capture movement. Please look at this example https://www.colinbell.photography/favourites/spatebrathay. Photography cannot be completely abstract. There is an opinion that abstractionism emerged from photography when artists believed they couldn't express more than photographers. Why should photography move in exactly this way?
Seems to me that what you just said is that ICM is photography -- assuming I'm not misinterpreting your point (wouldn't be the first time!).
To answer your question (actually, I'm disagreeing with your third sentence), two reasons. First, why not? All art is expression, regardless of mode, media, tools, or techniques. Which means that any given mode, medium, tool, or technique for such expression is as valid as any other. If someone finds that abstraction is the best fit for expressing what they're trying to convey, that's perfectly valid. ICM can even be documentary -- check out Olga Karlovac's street photography (e.g., https://www.instagram.com/olga.karlovac). I learned more about city life in eastern Europe during winter from just a few of her photos than anywhere else. She's expressing so much more than that, but it is a component.
Second, because ICM (or any other form of abstraction) is one of the many photography techniques that facilitate expression of story, mood, emotion, and beauty (among many others). I myself think of ICM as a technique, not a tool -- akin to, say, brush stroke techniques in the painting world. The camera & lenses and supporting accessories are the tools of photographic (artistic) expression, just as a brush is a tool of artistic expression. Perhaps, though, that is merely a distinction in word definition, not artistic intent or meaning. In which case your definition is just as valid, given your meaning, as mine, given my meaning. Tool or technique, though, ICM is just one of many in photography.
The word "photography" derives from "painting with light". There all kinds of ways to paint with light and infinite interpretations of subject matter. Either you like it or you don't, but let's not waste time quibbling about whether it's "photography". And BTW, I think these particular abstractions from documentary reality have artistic merit.
Thanks so much for the feature and promotion of the upcoming Santa Fe Workshops abstract photography webinar! All very much appreciated.
Fancy pictures, but it's not photography.
Alexander, ICM is absolutely photography. These are long exposures taken with a camera.
Long exposure is not an end in itself; it’s simply a tool to capture movement. Please look at this example https://www.colinbell.photography/favourites/spatebrathay. Photography cannot be completely abstract. There is an opinion that abstractionism emerged from photography when artists believed they couldn't express more than photographers. Why should photography move in exactly this way?
Seems to me that what you just said is that ICM is photography -- assuming I'm not misinterpreting your point (wouldn't be the first time!).
To answer your question (actually, I'm disagreeing with your third sentence), two reasons. First, why not? All art is expression, regardless of mode, media, tools, or techniques. Which means that any given mode, medium, tool, or technique for such expression is as valid as any other. If someone finds that abstraction is the best fit for expressing what they're trying to convey, that's perfectly valid. ICM can even be documentary -- check out Olga Karlovac's street photography (e.g., https://www.instagram.com/olga.karlovac). I learned more about city life in eastern Europe during winter from just a few of her photos than anywhere else. She's expressing so much more than that, but it is a component.
Second, because ICM (or any other form of abstraction) is one of the many photography techniques that facilitate expression of story, mood, emotion, and beauty (among many others). I myself think of ICM as a technique, not a tool -- akin to, say, brush stroke techniques in the painting world. The camera & lenses and supporting accessories are the tools of photographic (artistic) expression, just as a brush is a tool of artistic expression. Perhaps, though, that is merely a distinction in word definition, not artistic intent or meaning. In which case your definition is just as valid, given your meaning, as mine, given my meaning. Tool or technique, though, ICM is just one of many in photography.