Digital BW, The Print

I think what I was saying, is that it's common (and acceptable) for the 
word "abstract" to be used to mean "less representational", hence some 
of the confusion in this discussion.

Could you put some words around what you mean by abstract when you say a 
photo can be "more or less abstract"? I'm not challenging you, I'm just 
curious.

-Jason

Bill Morse wrote:
> Hi Jason-
> 
> As I have tried to describe in other posts, for me the "continuum" is
> between "more or less "representational" at the same time as "more or less
> "abstract"- both things, simultaneously.  In this sense, photography as Art
> (as opposed to snap-shot) is really no more nor less "representational" or
> "abstract" than painting.
> 
> Having said that, I would add that the problem (for me) is precisely the
> relative ease with which photography can "pretend" to be reality- it is a
> seductive trap which can lead us to works that are more a snap-shot than a
> "work of art."
> 
> Bill Morse
> PhotoProspect
> Cambridge, MA 02139
> 
> 
> on 9/17/02 1:24 PM, Jason DeFontes wrote:
> 
> 
>>I think there is more than one valid usage of the word abstraction
>>that's getting mixed up here.
>>
>>The first, the one that I believe Austin is using, is the idea that
>>there's a continuum from representation<<-->>abstraction. In this sense,
>>a photograph surely lies near the representational end of the spectrum.