As a photographer who enjoys pushing my work into abstraction, and who gives well-received presentations on the topic, I so appreciate this anecdote. I think abstraction in art — especially photography— is more challenging to do well than many people realize, but it can be very rewarding for the artist and the viewer as it invites a deep engagement and personal interpretation.
In a similar event, a visitor to my studio last year sat with one of my prints for quite a while as her friend and I chatted, and I asked for her thoughts. The image is not purely abstract — many people recognize the subject quickly (it is a closeup of the side of a boat with its reflection in the water), while others take some time to see the waterline. She was not seeing the boat in the image but she was deeply engaged with the photograph anyway. The mystery was enough for her, without being solved. She ended up buying a large custom-sized framed print of that image for a prominent place in her living room.
When you’re looking at an abstract photographs you have no a chance to recognizable what the author thought when creating these "non-representational photographs". You may like or dislike only this set of color dabs. And it doesn't matter what painter uses - canvas or computer - it's a kind of suprematism by Malevich.
I just can't understand why we need to discuss this abstract art in the context of photography when the author has perfect photographic works.
AA, I’ve temporarily banned you from commenting for one month. I believe that engaging on a public platform should reflect the same respect and consideration we would show in face-to-face interactions. Simply calling someone’s photography 'awful' or 'horrible' isn’t constructive or aligned with the kind of dialogue we aim to foster here.
We have noticed you posting similarly crafted comments on quite a regular basis.
If you dislike a piece of work, you have two options: you can either share your opinion thoughtfully and explain your reasoning, or refrain from commenting. At PHOTOSNACK, I feature photographers whose work I believe has merit and deserves exploration. Your comments not only dismiss their efforts but also criticize my editorial choices.
It’s perfectly fine to disagree, but simply dropping one harsh word doesn’t contribute to a productive or respectful conversation. I hope we can move forward with more constructive dialogue in the future.
As a photographer who enjoys pushing my work into abstraction, and who gives well-received presentations on the topic, I so appreciate this anecdote. I think abstraction in art — especially photography— is more challenging to do well than many people realize, but it can be very rewarding for the artist and the viewer as it invites a deep engagement and personal interpretation.
In a similar event, a visitor to my studio last year sat with one of my prints for quite a while as her friend and I chatted, and I asked for her thoughts. The image is not purely abstract — many people recognize the subject quickly (it is a closeup of the side of a boat with its reflection in the water), while others take some time to see the waterline. She was not seeing the boat in the image but she was deeply engaged with the photograph anyway. The mystery was enough for her, without being solved. She ended up buying a large custom-sized framed print of that image for a prominent place in her living room.
When you’re looking at an abstract photographs you have no a chance to recognizable what the author thought when creating these "non-representational photographs". You may like or dislike only this set of color dabs. And it doesn't matter what painter uses - canvas or computer - it's a kind of suprematism by Malevich.
I just can't understand why we need to discuss this abstract art in the context of photography when the author has perfect photographic works.
AA, I’ve temporarily banned you from commenting for one month. I believe that engaging on a public platform should reflect the same respect and consideration we would show in face-to-face interactions. Simply calling someone’s photography 'awful' or 'horrible' isn’t constructive or aligned with the kind of dialogue we aim to foster here.
We have noticed you posting similarly crafted comments on quite a regular basis.
If you dislike a piece of work, you have two options: you can either share your opinion thoughtfully and explain your reasoning, or refrain from commenting. At PHOTOSNACK, I feature photographers whose work I believe has merit and deserves exploration. Your comments not only dismiss their efforts but also criticize my editorial choices.
It’s perfectly fine to disagree, but simply dropping one harsh word doesn’t contribute to a productive or respectful conversation. I hope we can move forward with more constructive dialogue in the future.