The blog page of Patrick Boerlin
"...differences in how organisms perceive the world are not arbitrary but rather finely tuned by interactions with their surroundings, biology, and evolutionary history. Every species has access to a different slice of reality - what is real to one may be invisible to another. There's vast world around us that other species can perceive but we humans can't. Our Umwelt is just one among millions."
Christine Webb
A reflection on abstract photography
I’ve been wondering since a long time why people often call some of their photographs “an abstract image”, while I personally don’t see any abstraction in them? It seems that such images often don’t fit the definition of abstract commonly used in the art world in general. When researching for the latter, one finds that the main attributes associated with abstract art are that it is “not an accurate depiction of visual reality”, that it has “little to do with reality and the “visible world”, that it does not intend to represent things “realistically”. The main expressive tools of abstract art are shapes, forms, lines, colours and gestures, but not the realistic nature of objects. Of course, there is a continuum of variation in the amount of “departure from reality” used in abstract art, going from only slight to complete, but there is always that departure component in it.
When I read about abstraction in photography and its definition, it becomes quickly clear that it is different than the one used in art in general. Abstraction is much less well-defined and has a broader definition in photography. It seems all too often to encompass what, to me, are completely realistic images. The latter most often represent objects or details of an object extracted from their broader context, but still very much anchored in reality. This is not abstraction and such images would certainly not be recognized as “abstract” in the general art world. They very often trigger the “what is it?” question in the viewer, which for me is a clear sign that it must be related to reality. One of the main objectives of abstract art is to stimulate feelings and emotions, and the question that naturally arises with any abstract work of art is not “what is it?” but “how does it feel?” or “what emotions does it trigger?” Why should it be different for abstract photography? There is nothing wrong with realistic photographs. Beyond documentation, they can be expressive and trigger emotions in the viewer as well as abstract photographs, when the tools of visual language are used effectively by the photographer. Maybe it is just that those who call their photographs abstract, when they are not, think that makes them more “artsy”, but those who appreciate art know to use the right vocabulary and call things by their name.
