Digital BW, The Print

Hi Austin:

This is a very academic definition of "abstraction" in art.  I would turn
the last sentence you quoted around, and say that "works that reframe nature
for expressive purposes are **art**!"  Of course that applies as much to the
f:64 sensibility as to Holga un-focusing.  They are abstractions  because
one thing (the image) *represents* certain aspects, but necessarily only a
few aspects, of another (whatever was in front of the lens).

I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say that just because there is a
school of art that is labeled "abstract", that other art is not abstract.
Would you say that only the "realist" school, or maybe only the
"Super-Realist" school is "realistic?"  I think not, as these terms are all
relative.  Fundamentally, they describe groups of art-work, not it
relationship to "reality," but in relationship *to other works of art*.
They are all more or less abstract, all more or less "realistic."

Why is this important?  To me it's important because it helps me stay
focused on the image, as an expressive end to itself, in the present moment,
not as an aid to remember a moment, place, and event that have passed.

Bill Morse
PhotoProspect
Cambridge, MA 02139

on 9/17/02 7:21 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:

> To quote:
> 
> "Painters and sculptors do not always strive to depict persons and objects
> realistically. Rather than imitate their subject's natural appearance, some
> artists deliberately change it. They stretch or bend forms, break up shapes,
> and give objects unlikely textures or colors. Artists make these
> transformations in an effort to communicate something they cannot convey
> through realistic treatment. Works of art that reframe nature for expressive
> effect are called abstract."
> 
> That says it in a nutshell, and follows exactly what I've been saying.
> Photography that is realistic in nature is NOT abstraction.