Over the past couple of weeks I have been out and about taking 'abstract' photographs. It has been an interesting experience because it is something that I have never done. The first question I had to ask myself was what is meant by the term 'abstract'. As far as I was able to discover there is no generally agreed definition of the term and that any agreement that there is seems to be a definition of an image post production. It is tempting to suggest that the description is applied to images where the subject matter is unclear or ambiguous and as humans seem to need to classify something in order to understand it the term 'abstract' provides the pigeon hole. What is clear is that the actual/implied content does not have the same level of importance as is usual in more conventional photography. What is important is that the combination of elements such as line, colour, and relationships invite/demand an emotional reaction from the viewer.
My past experience in photography suggests to that my general approach is to first see the overall picture that is before me and from that extract a part that best meets what I wish to achieve. The selected part still can be seen as a whole and has not been rendered meaningless by removing it from the context within which it lies. My favourite photography is landscapes, whether rural or urban, so when preparing to shoot I select an element that may be the whole or a very large part of the overall scene. On other occasions it may be just a relatively small element such as a tree. In the latter case I can isolate the tree from its surroundings but it will still be recognisable as a tree. I have ''zoomed' in to exclude elements that I feel at the time are unnecessary to the result I am aiming for. With abstract photography I found myself zooming in to a point where the selected area could no longer be seen as a recognisable object because there were no identifying clues within the frame.
Given this approach I found that there was a need to have some idea of what I wished to 'find' in my lens. Many of my ideas were formed from visiting the sites of acknowledged abstract photographers whilst at the same time trying to create something that was essentially mine. In practice what happened was that I found myself looking at elements that were before me in the hope that by extracting the relevant parts I would, in some magical way, find something to photograph. Whilst this method provided boundaries so that the task was manageable it was not very successful. On reflection my approach was mechanistic and too structured. Many years ago I learnt the art of free thinking which is probably a posh way of day-dreaming whilst at the same time being aware of what is around you. The advantages lie in the reaction to visual stimuli in which there is no attempt to classify what is being seen but accepting it as a combination of light, colour, composition and texture that 'is' requiring no explanation or conscious understanding. [There is a very real need to retain an awareness of where you are and the training lies in being able to acquire the two states at the same time].
Having adopted this strategy I saw a whole new world with many opportunities for abstract photography. What I was unsure of at the beginning was what the outcome would be and inevitably there were a number of failures. In addition I have chosen to work in black and white and this meant that the tonal range was key. What I found was that the monochrome approach in part simplified the process but at the same time introduced complications that had to be addressed.
Work is in progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment