An old beat up and oxidized metal silo on an abandoned farm. I shot it close-up to show its "character" and to disguise its identity. Further, I shot it with the camera tilted on a severe angle to further distort its appearance. The result - a silo abstract. At least one definition of an abstract (the one I use) includes the criteria that "the subject should not be readily identifiable". Many images posted as "abstracts" are readily identifiable; the maker simply used an angle/cropping/whatever that gave a different look to something that is still clearly a flower/car/whatever. Not that my definition is right and theirs is wrong - just illustrating differing points of view. As a viewer of an abstract it is sometimes considered "bad form" to ask "what is it"; it's whatever your eye & mind want it to be? "Hello, Jackson Pollock - what is that image you've just made by dripping paint all over that canvas?" (Sorry - Just trying to be funny.)