photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
kodak_challenge | all galleries >> Kodak Challenges >> Challenge 16: Abstract >> Competition Gallery > "Paint Spill" by Warren Sarle
previous | next
09-AUG-2005

"Paint Spill" by Warren Sarle

Nikon D2x
1/80s f/8.0 at 60.0mm iso100 full exif

other sizes: small medium original auto
comment | share
Guest 13-Aug-2005 07:32
If this were black and white I'd being warning Jono about the ink blots. Quick, tell me what's the first thing that comes to mind. If you cross your eyes a bit I can see a dragon having had one to many beers and hicupping bubbles. Ahhhh!!! to much fun - Paul
kodak_challenge10-Aug-2005 20:58
Given David's explanation, I now understand how his barn and Jono's airplane got into the gallery. It simply hadn't occurred to me that symbolism might be considered a form of abstraction in art. In art history, symbolism and abstraction are separate dimensions. But I see how the concepts of symbolism and abstraction are related in psychology and math. What David said is exactly the sort of clarification I was asking for in the dpreview thread.

I agree with Kim that the exaggerated color and generic shapes of David's barn give it some degree of abstraction in the sense of form-over-content. But I think the content is too strong to consider it more than slightly abstract in that sense.
-Warren
kodak_challenge10-Aug-2005 20:05
Could I just say, everyone's reflections on the definition of abstract, are interesting. I'd like to add that I feel David's barn becomes an abstraction merely because of the colorful representation; in essence, it is another (more successful version) of his previous "red, green, and blue". Also in this sense, Warren's paint blop, becomes the abstraction "blue and yellow" -- where the element of color has become symbolic, and the bloppy application adds energy. I think the color reaches the emotions, however both the images are still somewhat representational. For my understanding, the more the physical subject is less identifiable, and becomes subordinate to the graphic-emotional elements, the more it has become abstraction. --Kim
kodak_challenge10-Aug-2005 19:12
No wine for me tonight - I'm apt to fall down the loft ladder on my way to bed if i drink too late.
Flick.
Guest 10-Aug-2005 19:06
I say more wine and less cogitation for all. [For Warren -- when we do mental status assessments in my field, one of the categories of concern is a client's ability for "abstraction," which means something very close to their capacity to think symbolically rather than merely concretely. If someone views my barn photo, and says "that's a barn and a tree and..." that is an "overly concrete" non-abstracted statement, in the context I'm referring to. Thus, abstraction (in this sense) has to do with a subjectively defined symbolic awareness, where concrete reality is viewed on an "abstract" level.] -- DF
kodak_challenge10-Aug-2005 18:53
Who cares, they all qualify so far as I'm concerned, and here I like the colour and shapes - looks a bit like a bug or alien to me - Dear me - pass the wine Jono, :-) Quentin.
kodak_challenge10-Aug-2005 18:05
Warren, if you're still perplexed as to what I meant by abstract AS IT RELATES TO THIS CHALLENGE (sorry about apparent shouting, please mentally turn the caps into italics) please take a look at the sample images for which I gave links in the challenge thread - these include the barn and landscape in David's RGB and your own Delicate Arch image, neither of which are abtract in the stricter sense.
Flick.
kodak_challenge10-Aug-2005 17:02
HI David, Flick, Warren.
Don't misunderstand me, it's not me who wants the definition of 'abstract' pinned down, and I won't be removing the 'chard' either!
I was trying to establish a reason for NOT tightening up Flick's excellent definition with respect to the contest. variables to all jono
kodak_challenge10-Aug-2005 16:52
I'm not familiar with a definition of "abstract" that goes to subjective meaning rather than visuals. Could someone enlighten me, please?
I would have thought that David's barn, although a strikingly graphic image, is the least abstract photo in this gallery so far. Quentin's towers would come in as second least abstract.
- Warren
Guest 10-Aug-2005 16:03
I quite agree that my barn is possibly the most "abstract" of the images posted so far, but only in the particular definition of "abstract" that goes to subjective meaning rather than visuals. Warren's groovy and paint spills, and also the chard, fit MY definition of visual abstraction perfectly well, and also allow room for subjective abstraction....actually Warren's more than chard. -- DF
kodak_challenge10-Aug-2005 14:09
Jono, DON"T remove the chard!!!!!!
Flick.
kodak_challenge10-Aug-2005 09:22
Hi Warren
no abstraction here (is there?) It's just an excellent representational picture of some spilled paint.
We were having a long discussion about this last night, and the concluson was that the subject needs to be abstracted - which this, nice as it is, isn't - (my chard isn't either).
Perhaps the only shot in the competition which really qualifies in this context is David's barn (neither the gate or the hook do), which is ironic, as it's also pretty much, the most 'representational'.
LOL - don't get me wrong, I quite understand that you were thinking 'this one's safe' and that most others would agree, but it's not so simple (I don't think your psychedelic one counts either in this context).
What I'm getting at is that it really isn't possible to give a proper definition of 'abstract' with respect to photographs (at least, not in the context of the competition, and one which everyone will agree with), and the competition will be much more fun with a loose definition. Mind you, there are some I don't think qualify - and I won't be voting for them!
This on the other hand, IMHO, qualifies splendidly, AND is a great shot.
hope this helps
kind regards jono