Hello fellow Forumers! Here's yet another mind-boggling question that I haven't been able to answer. When I look through a gallery of 'Abstract' photos at another website (not at CS), I come across a huge variety of submissions, ranging from portraits (some tightly cropped), insects, parts of flowers, photographs of patterns/ shadows, still life, light trails, architecture...
So this begs the question, 'What on earth is an 'Abstract' Photo?' How does a photograph qualify to be labeled as an 'abstract'?
Must an 'abstract' photograph make the subject unidentifiable as to type? Or perhaps the subject can still be identified through the photo, which is actually a small snippet of the entire subject?
My English isn't good, but I thought the act of 'abstracting' means to take something out of context. But whenever we take any photograph, are we also not 'abstracting' or taking the subjects out of their context? This perhaps explains why a slight change in composition can mean a big change in meaning. :dunno:
Anyone able to help me clarify this issue?
So this begs the question, 'What on earth is an 'Abstract' Photo?' How does a photograph qualify to be labeled as an 'abstract'?
Must an 'abstract' photograph make the subject unidentifiable as to type? Or perhaps the subject can still be identified through the photo, which is actually a small snippet of the entire subject?
My English isn't good, but I thought the act of 'abstracting' means to take something out of context. But whenever we take any photograph, are we also not 'abstracting' or taking the subjects out of their context? This perhaps explains why a slight change in composition can mean a big change in meaning. :dunno:
Anyone able to help me clarify this issue?