I'd like to have a discussion about the role of abstraction in landscape photography- a category that is generally highly representational.

To me it seems that, generally, abstraction takes the form of a.) isolating features to the point it's hard to tell what they are, b.) motion blur, either from subject or camera movement, or c.) use of an extremely short depth of field. It's this 3rd type of abstraction (there could be more that I've missed here) that I've begun to experiment with, and to move past, into something I haven't seen done before.

I started to experiment with greater levels of abstraction by deliberately de-focusing the image in an effort to capture the sense of my subject, rather than the details. These images are more about the colours, tones, contrasts, the shapes of the landscape, rather than specific details.

You can see some examples of my recent work at my online gallery.

I would love to hear any comments on my work, specifically or in general, but would also like to talk about your thoughts on this matter, hear about other photographers that used abstraction in their work, etc.

Thanks,

Jonathan

Sorry! To my eyes you've just got a sereies of out-of-focus images of no value (to me).

There's nothing here I find the slightest bit interesting.

Okay Ray, fair enough (in fact it's been a fairly common reaction - though I was kind of hoping it wouldn't be the first reaction...), and thanks for the honesty.

What I'd like to know is whether what you object to is the style of the abstraction in these images (the deliberate focus shift), or the practice of abstraction in general? I've included some examples of the three types of photographic abstraction I mentioned in my initial post. I'd love to know whether any of these are of interest or appeal to you (or to others reading this thread). and especially I'd like to know why, or why not...

This first image is sharply focused, yet still quite abstracted in the sense that I've zoomed in close enough that the "subject" of the photograph is no longer the grass in itself, but rather the contrasting lines of light and dark, the range of colour from blue to yellow, and the repeating, gently curved lines of the blades:



This one is sharply focused, yet is of a blurry (foggy) scene:



This next image was one of my favourite winners from the 2005 BBC wildlife photographer of the year award (see here). It was shot at f/32, so depth of field/mis-focusing is not what's creating the effect, it's the motion of the water. Again, the effect of the technique used by the photographer is to "capture the strange effect" (quote by the photographer), rather than a split-second representation of the waterfall:



This next one of my own uses the same type of exposure settings (small aperture, long exposure time) to capture not only the colour, but also the movement of the early autumn leaves blowing in a breeze:



These last two both use short depth of field to abstract the content. The first was taken with a long lens with a large distance between the sharply-focused foreground and the background, throwing the background out of focus. The second is a close-up taken nearly parallel to the fallen log with a wide apeture so that only a small area is in the in-focus plane. Both these techniques, here, again have the effect focusing the attention on the colours, shapes, and lines in the photograph as a whole, rather than on the "subject" (sapling and grass shadow, respectively).





So please, let me know how (or whether) you think abstraction can play a role in appealing landscape photography. I've been rolling these ideas around in my head by myself for a while, and would enjoy having a genuine discussion to see what other people think about all this. (and don't worry about hurting my feelings, as long as you're truthful and respectful, I want to know exactly what you think, good or bad)(besides, I still like the blurry ones, and that's what counts to me...)

Jonathan

(Again, you can browse through a collection of my images (many far less abstract than these) at www.borealisimages.ca, or leave your comments at www.borealisimages.ca/discussionboard)

Jonathan,
Having looked at a few of your images, I find that some of them are very evocative and striking. They grab the attention. You seem to have an eye for making the most out of small details that others might miss. But I have to say I like your 'in focus' images much better than your 'out of focus' images.

I'm not sure that the simple technique of getting the entire image OOF constitutes a meaningful abstraction. I see this as more of a reaction against the obsession with resolution, which I also see in many of your images which appear beautifully tack sharp at the point of focus. A sharp point of interest contrasted against a blurry background is fine. When the whole image becomes the blurry background it just seems incomplete to me. Nevertheless, anyone who likes minimalist paintings might like your OOF images. I'm sometimes amazed at the amount of valuable space that is often taken up in art galleries by huge minimalist paintings that are about as interesting as a bare wall.

I suppose one good point about your OOF images, they are restful for the eyes . Is that their purpose?

I agree that the focused images are much better. Partly because there is an "aim" to them, on the other hand the out of focused image seems "aimless".

I think out of focused images could be used if it was for like a photo diary of some sorts or a sillhouette of a easily recognised subject, other than that it just doesn't evoke.

from the Merriam Webster online dictionary: abstract: having only intrinsic form with little or no attempt at pictorial representation or narrative content

I suspect the problem with the images in you original post was that they actually had too much pictorial representation - ie weren't sufficiently "abstract" - since the essential subject was still very much apparent - trees, mountain etc. The best one was the 3 "suns" and I liked that, as an abstract, becaused it really didn't look like an out of focus photograph.

Thanks again everyone for your comments.

Ray- yes, I do find the out-of-focus images to be restful. For me, I can look at them and appreciate the colours and shapes of the image, rather than being distracted by the details.

One of my favourite quotes from the great Ansel Adams reads: "A great photograph is one that fully expresses what one feels, in the deepest sense, about what is being photographed." (my emphasis) Ansel was of course known for taking only the sharpest possible images, rebelling against the prevailing trend when he was first starting of using slightly soft focus to add a "dreamy" effect, but what he said still rings true for me. When I make these blurry images, the thing that makes me take my camera out of the bag and compose a photo, and what I am trying to capture and present to the viewer, is the overall colours/shapes/patterns of the landscape, not the specific details of the scene. As you noticed, there are times when it's the details that I find inspiring me to take a picture, and then I make sure that those details are captured sharply.

I am interested in knowing whether more "traditional" methods of rendering the entire contents of a photograph out-of-focus, such as long exposures of moving subjects, deliberate camera movement during exposure, or multiple exposures, are more appealing to people reading this thread, and if so, why? Maybe some of you are familiar with the work of Freeman Patterson? He is a well established canadian photographer, who has published several excellent books that encouraged me to experiment with different techniques of capturing the essence of a subject, rather than the details. His term for this style is "photo impression". Here are a couple examples of his work (you can find more at his website).



(camera movement, maybe even out-of-focus)



(depth of field, with no subject in focus (the light circles are dew drops))



(camera movement)



(camera movement)

Courtney Milne is another canadian photographer who's work inspired me to begin experimenting with my own work. He too, uses the techniques I mentioned above to render his photographs as abstractions of the actual subject. Here are a couple examples of his work, from a great book that he did in tribute to canadian authour W.O. Mitchellgreat book



(long exposure with lens zoomed during exposure (reflections on a stream))




(double exposure with camera movement)




(camera movement)

Many more of my favourite examples of Courtney's work can be seen here in a gallery of images in tribute to canadian artist Emily Carr, including these:



(camera movement)



(depth of field (??))

So do any of these images appeal to anyone? How do you react to these different techniques? What seperates the images/techniques that you do like versus the ones that you don't like?

I'm interested to hear anyone's thoughts on this...

Jonathan

They'd make great mouse pads.

Tim- thank you for the interesting definition, I searched define:abstract art in google, and came up with these as the top two definitions: (my emphasis)

"Art that departs significantly from natural appearances. Forms are modified or changed to varying degrees in order to emphasize certain qualities or content. Recognizable references to original appearances may be slight. The term is also used to describe art that is nonrepresentational." link

"Not realistic, though the intention is often based on an actual subject, place, or feeling. Pure abstracion can be interpreted as any art in which the depiction of real objects has been entirely discarded and whose aesthetic content is expressed in a pattern or structure of shapes, lines and colors. When the representation of real objects is completely absent, such art may be called non-objective." link

Photography is an interesting medium in that, unlike a painting, a photograph must represent a subject that actually existed in reality. Richard Martin wrote a great article in the March 2005 article of the canadian photography magazine Photolife. If you're interested in this discussion, try to find a copy at your library.

It's interesting that of my blurry ones, it was the blurriest one that you prefered. Many of the images from other photographers in my previous post still contain discernable subjects, do you find this "pictorial representation" to still be distracting with these different techniques of abstraction? Below are some examples of my own, where I've taken the out-of-focus technique about as far as my lens would allow:







A good friend of mine shares your opinion that the blurrier the better, so I'd be interested to see what you think of these ones above, or if I happened to "hit it lucky" with the "three suns" image. And speaking of which, this was one of the few times that I've taken an alternate, sharply focused, photograph of the same subject matter. So at the risk of providing an alternative to the lone positive reaction so far (I'm not sure if "nice mouse-pads" is a compliment or not...), here is the two alternate versions:





Obviously, the two versions are doing two competely different things: the sharply focused image presenting a view of an interesting and beautiful sunset, the out-of-focus image presenting (hopefully) an interesting and beautiful image in it's own right, separate from the subject matter.

It seems to me that most people have a difficult time separating beautiful subject matter from beautiful image. This seems especially true in photography, as opposed to paintings, due to the expectation of viewers that a photograph is a "true" or "accurate" depiction of the real world.

What do you think? I'd like to hear anybody's opinions on this topic.

Jonathan

To be honest I'm not sure either. But the first thing that went through my head was that I'd like that on a mouse pad. (Or as a desktop.)

I think it is because it works when your focus is elsewhere. Which makes sense since there is really no point of focus. I'm not sure there is a catagory for art you shouldn't look at directly.

Jonathan, I like your abstracts where there are elements that my eye can snap to. I find that your completely out of focus shots don't provide a 'starting point' for me (which is probably the intent), but I find it unsettling because I've spent my entire life being trained to settle my eye onto some part of whatever I'm looking at.

One from me:



Cheers,
Bernard

I like the first image the most (actually quite like it). If oof is the abstraction technique, then I think any actual representation needs to be pretty well "abstracted" out.

My preferred style of abstraction is to preserve sharp focus, but remove as much context as possible.

That's an interesting point Sean. I've heard from a number of people that they are looking for something (anything) to act as a focal point in a photograph. I think this is the same thing Grev was talking about the "aim" of an image.

I do think that a large part of the reason that viewers "require" this "snap-to" point is that, like you said, we've all been trained to view photographic images in a certain way, and anything that does not fit well with those ways of viewing photos becomes "uncomfortable". I've been thinking that most people regard, and expect, photographs as documentation of a subject, rather than as aesthetic entities in their own right. Not to suggest though, that the documentation can not be done in a compelling, beautiful manner.

I wonder Sean (or anyone), whether you find that the other abstraction techniques that render the entire image blurred or streaked, do provide this "starting point" or "aim", and if so, how exactly. (I ask Sean specifically because he has some beautiful examples of camera movement, and lens zoom, during exposure posted on his website)

Jonathan

That's a beautiful image Tim, I also find the technique of isolating elements of the landscape is a great (and more accesible) way to get people to look more closely at the beauty around them.

Bernard's contribution is a great example of this technique too, beautiful, but I can't tell exactly what it is. And for me, that's part of the appeal. Not being able to discern the subject matter forces me to appreciate the photograph in it's own right, as a beautiful image, rather than as a well composed documentation of a beautiful scene.

Here's an example of my own:



It's interesting that Tim mentions maintaining sharp focus when, to my eye, all of the sharp detail in your image has been rendered "out of focus" due to the distortion of the water. It's clear from the image that, had the water not been there, you've "correctly" set your lens to the proper focal distance to capture the sharp detail, and yet it's not there. To me, this photograph is more about the colours, the pattern of light surfaces and dark lines, and the different textures in the top and bottom of the image, rather than a picture of stones in a lake.

I've found that photographers often use water for this effect, and I am interested in the difference in reaction to images where a photographer has captured pre-existing distortion, vs. when a photographer makes a creative decision to add abstraction to an image. I think perhaps, similar to what Sean ("digiteyesed") mentioned, people are accustomed to seeing things distorted by water, but not by photographers.

What do you think? Is there an essential difference between the two techniques?

Jonathan

a couple more






i also tend to favor the 'remove the frame of reference' style. it does seem to add anchor points more readily

This thoughtful and considered discussion has inspired me to explore abstraction more.

Difficulties in determining our ability to appreciate "abstract photography" I think relates to what Ray originally suggested and others have indicated (also in this thread http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=10667 )- that it is an oxymoron - because of the accepted nature of photography, that is, to capture what one can see. Digital imaging and photoshop have somewhat shifted this notion and enhancement and creative effects through photoshop have become tolerated and accepted to various degrees depending upon which area of the art one practices.

From my own artistic studies, (as I mentioned in the link above), one of the key elements of abstract art was the physical, tangible involvement with the medium. This may not be possible to the same extent with photography, unless one considers the camera or keyboard correlating with paint, pastel..etc. Perhaps because of the nature of photography this element is not important and the final product is the only element which is used to determine whether a photograph is an abstract.

Thanks for posting your images Collum, but in my mind I don't feel that they are actually abstracts. They explore shape and colour, but I don't think they satisfy many of the definitions of abstract, one of which Tim quoted above. Your images are more like close ups of rocks, rather than true abstractions.

Some of the other abstract photographs are truly beautiful and inspiring and have opened up a whole new way of seeing the world for me. Thak you also Tim, Bernard, and JMDR

It would be interesting to see whether artists-turned-photographers are able to appreciate 'blurred' out of focus photographs as abstractions without the need to have clear focal points and sharpness, more readily than photographers-turned artists.

Julie

Hmmm.... I don't consider this shot "abstract"



But, on a scale of 1 - 10, I would give this an "abstraction score" of 8.



Maybe part of the problem is that "abstract" isn't binary - an image can be "more or less" "abstract". Of Collum's 2 images I would consider the second to be significantly more abstract than the first.

I think that the characterization of abstract might also depend on the media - what's abstract in the context of paint on a canvass might be different from what's abstract in the context of a photograph.

Thank you Julie for some great points here, (and for the link to the other discussion- some interesting stuff going on), I'd like to respond to a little of what you've brought up:

For me, landscape photography is the epitome of "physical, tangible involvement with the medium", when I am making photographs I feel that I am fully immersed in my medium, i.e. the boreal forest that is my "palette". I can see it, hear it, smell it, (get bitten by it). My camera is then like a paintbrush, with which I can take what is on my palette and apply it, with different methods depending on my own creative impulses, to my "canvas" (I'm not sure where the analogy goes here, my sensor? my screen? a print? your screen? all of the above?).

I think you bring up a critical distinction between "abstraction" and what might be called "de-familiarization". I would say that Bernard's and Collum's images (as well as my own ice pattern image) would fall into this second category. Both these techniques go beyond "simple" representation of a subject, and force a viewer to, at least, look differently at a subject than they ever would on their own, and at the extreme, force the viewer to forget about the subject matter and to simply appreciate the image- something that is not comfortable for many people.

I have definitely found that friends of mine that are artists, be they painters, sculptors, poets, or musicians, have (overall) been more receptive to my out-of-focus photographs than have been my friends that are biologists, teachers, engineers.

It seems that the different reaction is due to a difference in the expectations of a photograph, related to the "accepted nature of photography" that you mentioned, i.e. "to capture what one can see". I hear this often, and have thought long and hard about it.

It's not hard to find magazine articles, etc. where the author explains that a camera does not in fact "see" the world the same way that humans do. (e.g. the article in the Mar '05 Photolife I mentioned above). When have you ever seen the world in black and white? with the velvia-esque colour intensity? with a narrow depth of field? with barrel distortion? in only two dimensions? The list goes on... A good example of one of the "conventions" of photography, is that "increasing blurriness = greater distance". This is not the way things look like to the human eye, but rather is an effect of the lenses we use in front our cameras (technically, this is the way our eyes work too, except that they are always focusing themselves- just try to look at the blurry background when you're looking closely at a flower- it's pretty tough to catch much of a glimpse!). And yet we have all been trained to interpret photographs this way.

I have faith though, that with enough people experimenting with abstraction, and enough practice looking at other's effort, even photographers (whom I resolutely insist get lumped into the "artist" category) will eventually be able to look at abstract photographs (oxymoronic or not), in their own right (although there's still no guarantee they'll like them...).

Jonathan

That's definitely true Tim, and I'd agree that the "ladies in the window" is less abstract (if at all- though a very well done example of an often repeated subject, the window/reflection/subject thing) than the sea/sky-scape. Although if you asked me, I'd say your first example of the stones is more abstracted than the other two, due to the effect of the water- and I wouldn't quite give that one a 9 or 10 out of 10...

Jonathan

Yes Jonathan, The irony of the phrase "the camera never lies" comes to mind. Most people know this is not true, yet I think many still hold on to, and expect, that what we see in an image is actually "what was". This may be due in part to the fact that most film, and now days - digital images, taken by the general public are submitted to mini-labs or processing labs, and the end result is a representation of what the photographer saw and took a photograph of. Just think of all the happy snaps in albums and boxes of prints and files in homes around the world. Not many I would think would consider the effect of a lens, or the way our eye works and the correlation between what we see and what transposes in print. The vast majority of photographers are not professionals nor capable or interested in doing anything other than handing their film or CF or SD card over for processing. I think perhaps it is this stimulus-response (take photo - see print) training that has reinforced the general perception of what a photograph is. Often, the only "abstract" images that most people encounter, are photographer "slip ups", and are quickly binned.

Julie

Jonathan, I think one's own training and perceptions may influence each person's interperetation of terms. Differences in language, exerience and culture I'm sure. I can see how you percieve your "pallete" though, and your camera as your paintbrush. Canvas...???interesting

What I have been taught is that the medium is the substance with which you create an image/artwork, i.e.; paint, charcoal, ink, clay, plaster, glass, paper etc and the Boreal forest you mention is the subject matter or stimulus. The implement you use to make the image I have been taught is referred to as the "tool", i.e. brushes, hammer, spray gun, saw, rasp, oxy torch...camera.

For me too, when I take photographs, I have a physical, tangible involvement and I am immersed in what I am doing, but I am not sure that I am "fully immersed in my medium" unless I am developing my prints in a dark room, and using my hands with the paper and fluid in a tactile way - the way that abstract art developed.

Regardless of terms - as I suggested before, it may be irrelevant and impossible to compare the elements of the process of abstract art in other forms - with photography, because of the nature of photography - and just examine the end product. ...time to let what I have been taught morph a bit.

Julie

That figures. Left-brain oriented people are generally more practical. Did we have much abstract art before the invention of the camera? I get the impression that there's a lot of pressure on artists to be innovative, different, unusual, shocking, whatever, just for the sake of it. The invention of the camera has increased the pressure so much that many artists (painters) seem to have flipped over into complete nonsensicality. And now it seems at least a few photographers are following them .

We have now arrived at the point where most members of the general public can not tell the difference between a painting by a chimpanzee or elephant, and a painting by a supposedly cultured and skilled member of the artistic fraternity.

Will we soon arrive at the point where members of the general public will also not be able to tell the difference between an image from a skilled photographer and one from a complete amateur?

If defocussing an image was all it took to create an abstract, I could turn my entire photographic collection into works of abstraction by simply applying appropriate amounts of gaussian blur in Photoshop.

If you ever sell any of these OOF images, Jonathan, let me know, won't you? I reckon the market could be very easily flooded with similar images .

In a sense Jule, that probably is still true. The camera really does never lie. Only people lie. But sometimes it might not be clear if the lie was deliberate, which requires a certain familiarity with the characteristics of the medium (the camera), or if the lie was inadvertent, as a result of the photographer not being familiar with the characteristics of the camera.

A typical example might be a picture advertisement for rental rooms in a hotel or guest house. To fit the whole room into the shot (or most of it) it's usually easier for the photographer to use a wide-angle lens. However, the effects of a wide-angle lens are to exaggerate the size of near objects and reduce the size of far objects resulting in an over all impression that the room is much bigger than it actually is.

In this example, I would say the photographer has probably lied but might shift the blame to the camera if confronted with the lie.

Jonathan,
I said I'd get back to you with a bit of commentary on your images. As I already mentioned, quite a few of them are really pleasing and eyecatching, but I prefer the more conventional ones such as, Willows and Shadows, Mist & Snowbank, Mountain Bluebird on wire fence, Birch Canopy, Winter Lake Shore at dusk, Nuthatch in early Evening, Evening colour on Driftwood, and perhaps a few more.

You have a curious affect with some of your shallow DoFs which doesn't work for me, such as 'Aspen Leaf after Morning Rain". Whilst the leaf is beautifully sharp with nice, clear drops of water, the rest of the image is too dominant despite being out of focus, The deep shadows and crevices in the rock tend to compete with the central focus of interest.

Other images, such as 'Cow Parsnip stems' again seem flawed because of a few OOF stems which are competing for attention with stems that are in focus. (I'd be tempted to clone them out).

Similar situation with the Aster Stems and flowers where the DoF is so shallow the OOF flowers seem to be about the same distance away as the in-focus flowers. There is thus an effect of confusion between the blurred and sharp flowers which doesn't seem right. Basically, I feel that an OOF or blurred part of an image is sending a message to the brain, "Don't look at me. There's nothing of interest." A sharp, in-focus part of an image is sending an opposite message to the brain. (Lookat me!). Place an in-focus subject next to an OOF subject, both of which appear to be in the same plane, and the eye can't avoid taking in the blurred part within the same glance.

One image I almost forgot, which I like a lot; The Hawk Owl, late winter 2005. That's outstanding, but one small criticism, it doesn't look tack sharp. I suspect your shutter speed of 1/200th wasn't fast enough for the 300mm lens.

Julie, thanks again for your well thought, and well spoken, responses to this thread and the other thread you mentioned earlier. I certainly agree with you that vocabulary is a tricky thing in this discussion, with words like "abstract" and "representation" meaning such different things to different people, and most of the time (myself included) not being used in a careful manner when trying to get an idea across. It's a great point at the end of your post, that sometimes we should forget the theory, etc. and concentrate on the product of our efforts.

"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." -Edward Weston

It's great that you mention that "photographer slip-ups" are the main source of abstract images for most people. I couldn't count the number of times that I've had people react to my blurred images by saying they thought they were mistakes (I guess without wondering why I'd post so many mistakes on my website!). Ray (and others), may not like the blurred images, but at least he assumed it was a deliberate choice of mine. This is also why (for a little laugh at my expense) I'm not worried about market saturation Ray, everyone else always deletes their blurry pictures!

It sounds to me Julie, like you've had some formal, or at least more extensive, training in art and art history, and an interest in "traditional" abstract art. I am wondering if you, or anyone else, know of examples of artists that could inform the development of "abstraction" in photography (and for me, in my work and experimentation, in particular).

I am also interested in what you think, as an "artist-photographer", about the different techniques of "abstraction" in photography, some of which I provided examples of earlier in this thread?

Jonathan

p.s. It's great to hear that these discussions have encouraged you to explore abstraction in photography more, I think the more people are willing to let themselves "morph" a little bit, the better off we'll all be...

Ray, thank you for the feedback, it's interesting to see the images that you pick out as favourites. I love that you picked out "willows and shadows", it is also one of my favourites, enough so that I gave my sister a large matted print of it for a wedding present!

The shallow depth-of-field effect that you mention was, I think, an early stepping stone in the development of my completely "defocused" technique.

It's interesting that you mentioned the "Aspen leaf.." image as an example of this effect, it's one of my best selling images (although I would agree with you that the crevasses, actually furrows in a blown-over aspen trunk, might be a bit on the "heavy" side).

It wasn't until the summer of 2005 that I first started playing around with completely de-focused images, although you can see a lone blurry picture in the summer 2004 gallery, "Wood stove on a rainy day" (I guess they'd call that foreshadowing...).

And you're right about the "Hawk Owl" picture, it was a dark grey day and I didn't have my tripod along on this hike, of the series that I took of this bird (some of which I like the composition better), this is the only usable one. Even for me there's good blurry and bad blurry...

Jonathan

I think it's a crucial comment that Ray made in his last post that, for him (and I think for a lot of people), the message that his brain has been trained to receive when looking at a blurred part in an image is "nothing of interest" (which is almost verbatim his first reply here I think )

My question then, is why? Why are photographers' brains automatically interpreting areas of colour, line, light, and form, that are not "tack sharp" as uninteresting?

And what then, is the crucial difference between an in-focus photograph of a blurry scene (such as the 2nd and 5th images in my second post here (fog and treeline, and sapling and sunset), as well as Tim's photo of stones and water here) versus a deliberately out-of-focus photograph of a "not-blurry" scene??

Anybody?

In any style that takes a radical departure from what is accepted (currently) you are basically creating your own world. To make it successful, and eventually accepted (more difficult), you have to live in the world you have created. To do so you have to trust that this world truly exists and you have to find living there to your liking. The responsibilty is really on you, that is what I am saying in short. Don't ask us to like it. Make us like it. Make it inviting, hospitable, welcoming. Make it something we want to be part of. There's little need for talk here. There is much need for images or for work on images although I do understand there is need for discussion as it may be helpful in finding out the boundaries and the definition of this world.

Jonathan, I have seen many exhibitions of a Brisbane based artist - Carl Warner, whose work is abstract - using photography. Warner uses the camera to record the detail he observes in the urban, industrial and natural envoronment. His contribution to Australian Photographic Art has been recently recognised by an Exhibition at the Queensland University Art Galllery, surveying his work over the past 10 years, in conjunction with the publication of a book by the University. Coincidentally, I saw this exhibition today whilst attending a lecture and forum entitled "Is Photography driving the regeneration of Contemporary Art?" at the University. - very interesting!

All of Warner's photographs are quite luscious, textural and are amazingly beautiful when looking at them in the gallery. I have seen most of them over the years, but revisiting them again with more experienced eyes brought with it much pleasure. I must say though, the thing which was quite apparent, was the difference between the 'feel' and impact of each image when standing in front of it, compared with the reproduction in the book and on his website. Looking at the photographs in 'real life' was a far more powerful experience and reproductions just don't seem to do the images justice. Carl Warner

Here is an artist who has continued to be true to himself by expressing the world in his chosen way - through photography, which in the main is abstract -regardless of whether it is 'accepted' or not. He has continued to work on a more commercial basis (to pay the bills), in conjunction with his committment to his artistic practice, and now is making his mark in the history books in Australian Art by expressing the way he sees the world through his camera.

Julie

Jonathan, perhaps it has something to do with the physical properties of our vision. When our vision becomes 'blurry' something is wrong - either there is something in our eye, or we require optical assistance through glasses. We try to overcome blurriness in our day to day lives. It is unnatural to be happy with something which is blurry...so how can we be comfortable looking at an image which is purposely blurry - especially when we are conditioned to percieve that the lens (of the camera) is an extension of our vision. I know this isn't totally answering the second part of your question, but it may help in the understanding of why clearly focussed abstracts are more well received than blurry ones.

Julie

.....ah yes, I have not forgotten all the styles/schools of art in which the subject is not clear, most actually, - but paint, pastel, charcoal etc, do not have the expectations accompanying the medium that photography has. Imagine trying to use "unsharp mask" on a Monet!
Julie

Jonathan,
I think Jule has part of the answer. A direct perception of blurriness is an indication that something is wrong, with our eyesight perhaps. As a biological species we've evolved and survived through application of skills that depend very significantly on having keen eyesight. Just about everybody in a modern society who has poor eyesight will get either prescription glasses or some sort of magnifying spectacles from the Chemist or Woolies. We might not need them to avoid predators in a modern society, but we certainly need them to read books and appreciate fine detail in photographs.

Another related issue is the way our eyes instantly focus on whatever we are directing out gaze at. It is in fact rather difficult to deliberately defocus what we are directly looking at, although anyone who uses Adobe Gamma to calibrate his/her monitor would be advised to at least try this by narrowing the eyes and sort of squinting.

It seems clear to me that OOF parts of a photograph 'represent' (rather than accurately depict) any part of any scene that we are not looking at directly. In the real scene, all we have to do is change the direction of our gaze and what was previously OOF almost instantly becomes in focus. In the photograph, the photographer has decided what parts are permanently in focus and permanently out of focus, and there's nothing the viewer can do about it. It's simply a technique of directing the viewer's attention to the 'in-focus' part of the image.

If the entire image is acceptably sharp, the viewer's gaze can shift from corner to corner and there might indeed be something of interest in every part of the image, even though there might also be a specific, dominant part of greatest significance.

I really don't think I want to retrain my brain to like totally blurry images, because, if I live to a ripe old age, say 110, that's going to happen anyway.

Thank you Alain for these words of encouragement. I agree with you the key here is the images, the process, and the development. The reason I started this thread was to try to understand how to incorporate into that development, an idea of what elements of an abstracted photograph different people find to be "inviting, hospitable, (and) welcoming", and which elements people react against. In the end, I like the work that I'm producing, and I enjoy the process of getting there. If I never sell a print, so be it, it's still been worthwhile in my books.

Jonathan

Thank you for the reference Julie, this is beautiful stuff. And it certainly is "abstract" to my eyes, even as it falls into the "defamiliarization" category mentioned earlier, just taken to an extreme level.

Unfortunately, I think there's a slim chance of seeing a show of his in Alberta! I certainly know what you mean about the different experience of a photograph when you're actually there in front of a print.

Jonathan

I think that eventually we are talking about developing a personal style, a process which is difficult and takes a long time. That is why I mentioned "creating one's world," which is in fact Georgia O'Keefe's wording for this process. Reading how other developed their style is certainly a recommended approach. My essay on Personal Style is available on this site at
http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/aesthetics9.shtml

I also recommend Georgia O'Keefe's writings.

I wish you the best for this process. In my experience, the best road to success is to immerse yourself in your work and pay little attention to criticism. Set high standards for your work and aim for these. Don't listen to the critics. Instead, do what you love. This works great for me, although I do understand that we are all different.

Well...time to bare my soul, and as Alain suggests - examine images ....so I share a few photographs from my current body of work to be exhibited later in the year. I post these with a warning - that they are not your usual landscapes. My landscape is underwater and I have taken photographs of a vortex in water. They are printed quite large, 45cm x 78cm and 60 x 90cm, face mounted on acrylic with composite aluminium backing, so the surface is high gloss to support the subject matter. I have also included my artist statement for this body of work for those who are interested.

Comments welcome
Julie

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Artist Statement

Abstract?

Geez! Jule, this is deep stuff....'connecting with one's true nature'.....'the nature of infinity' ......'images without cognitive social referencing'. Not sure what to make of these images. Seems you are trying to express the ineffable.

I'll have to think seriously about my response .

Jule,
On reflection, the top triptych is the most appealing. I wouldn't mind having that on my wall . It reminds me of some of the semi-abstract glassware I saw at Murano recently in Venice.

yes Ray...arty farty stuff hey! I'm also a poet, ....an idealist,... interested in philosphy , and although I love my day to day photography with a passion, I immerse myself in a body of work examining all aspects; technical, visual, theoretical and philosophical. ... each to his own - and I just love doing my art and study.
Julie

Thank you for the wonderful complement. In my last exhibition my images looked particularly like glass sculptures. The works of Dale Chihuly http://www.chihuly.com , a wonderful artist, influenced the inspiration I had for that previous body of work.
Julie

Julie, beautiful stuff. I, like Ray, had to sit with it for a while before being able to reply appropriately. I too found myself most interested in the triptych. The play of colour and light is incredible. I also really liked the 2nd dark vortex, the slash of white and the "blur" at the bottom- terrific.

I have never seen photographs like these before, and it's very exciting the scope of what is possible when people actively experiment with a camera as an expressive implement.

It was also great to read your artist's statement, I have long been unable to clearly articulate this well, (which is partly why I thought I'd try muddling through some of it here with you guys first...)

Thanks again for sharing this work, is there anywhere that we can see more (besides SE Auz? )

Jonathan

This is a great discussion! Jonathan, I also think that your more out of focus images are best, almost like being outside, but focused on some task other than looking at the surroundings, as if in one's peripheral vision.

For context, I do both photography and abstract paintings. I have included a few here.Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

James, I really like the tree image- the colour and mood is great. It's hard to tell from this little reproduction, but it looks like a photograph that's been worked with post-capture, (?) how did you achieve this effect? I like the isolation of the subject, and the blurring of the detail in the foreground and sky.

I'd be interested to know how how (or if) you feel being an abstract painter informs your work as a photographer. Your current online portfolio had a much different feel than the two images attached to your post, and I noticed this intriguing line in your bio: "His early work was rather abstract and suffered from a lack of direction". It sounds like you have been "cured" from the use of abstraction in your photography .

Jonathan

And thanks for the insight on my own photos, it's interesting to me the different ways that people express their reactions to the out-of-focus images. Taking Alain's advice I went out this weekend to do the most important thing, take more photographs- here's one example that I am pleased with:

Hi Jonathan-

This picture you took reminds me of what Mondrian did which was to distill the landscape into its basic elements of line, color, and shape. I really like it.

Being a painter absolutely informs my photography. For me, painting is a very philosophical pursuit that is more process oriented than my photography. The photography, even though my work is all over the place, is more subject oriented, but has lately been more influenced by my painting. The photographs I have been doing lately are also inspired by other artists like Keith Carter, Mark Tucker, and Jack Spencer, whose out of focus, textured, and layered work I admire. As to how I did it, the tree shot was captured on film and then I scanned and added some texture that was digitally captured.

Glad you read my bio! When I wrote that, I was a little tired of reading other photographers bios; nearly every one had a line like "he picked the camera up at age 12 and never looked back" or some such thing. No offense to anyone whatsoever.

Jule- I really like what you are doing as well.

Here's a few more...

Hi Jonathan,

I've been wanting to join this wonderful thread for quite a while, but I've been too busy to more than lurk. Like some of the other responders, I am not yet completely convinced by all of your soft-focus abstractions. But I think you are onto something, and should keep working on them. So far my favorites are the last one you posted, as well as the first and fifth from your June 14 post (#1 is a bit similar to the latest post; #5 is the one someone called "three suns".) Those one grab me in an elemental way, and I agree with James that there is something Mondrianish about them.

I have to add my thanks to Julie, too: those are fantastic images. I am tempted to go out and try photographing vortexes, too; but I won't.

Alain (and Georgia O'Keefe) put it very well, speaking of "living in the world you have created." Unlike some others here, I have moved more into a kind of "abstraction" as I get older. I do still try to retain a direct link to reality, or at least "plausibility". After a number of years, I began to realize that most of my best images were fairly abstract, at least in avoiding obvious clues to scale, or often "what is it?" My work now is pretty much divided between landscapes (generally quite literal), and what I might call "found abstractions". Recent subject matter that has fascinated me has included drips of tar put down to fix cracks in a road surface (inherently pretty ugly!); patterns created by the tide on sandy beaches; and graffiti and weathered paint on a long-abandoned railroad car. You can see some of these on my website, which you will find at http://myrvaagnes.home.mindspring.com/photos/ .

Comments are welcome. As soon as I have a bit more time, I'll pick a few to poste here, with my own comments.

I must add that I agree with Ray that an image must have emotional content or it won't move me at all. I do feel that abstractions can (but won't necessarily) do this.

Again, thanks for a great thread.

Eric

James, Thank you for posting your images. I really love your style of photography - (visited your site). I am particulary drawn to the image in the centre of the three you posted, the one of the ocean and sky. I think it is quite lovely. It continues to hold my attention. I really feel the expansiveness which is portrayed. I also love the image of the stairs. The textural element of the surface of the concrete in conjunction with the angular lines of the rails and steps is just wonderful. I think the graduation of light is superb. ....stairway to heaven..

I'm not sure though whether I would classify them as abstract though - just my thoughts however - as there is clearly recognisable subject matter. Regardless of that, the way you have explored space I think is beautiful.

Julie

Hey Julie-

Thanks for your wonderful comments! I agree these photographs are not abstract. My paintings are though, which was the initial comparison.

Eric, I love your tar in the road shots! Those are cool.

Jonathan, let's see some more!

James, thanks for the response. I'll have to look at more of Mondrian's stuff in the next couple days, as well as some of the other artists you've mentioned.

As for seeing more of my images, please have a look at my website any time at www.borealisimages.ca. The galleries are arranged chronologically, and the out-of-focus technique began for me in the summer of 2005 if you're interested in those, although I think you can certainly see a progression leading up to them. I usually post new galleries 4 times a year, but I'm headed out to the west coast at the end of the week (camera in tow), and I'll definitely share an image or two if I end up with something that I'm happy with.

Thanks again to everyone who's joined in here lately, this has been terrific and I'd love to hear from more of you.

Jonathan