There has really been a wonderful response so far to this month's abstract theme. Looking through my Gallery, about 1/3 to half of the images could be called "abstract." Some unintentionally so... Abstract may be one of those things defined by the mind of the beholder. What do you think? When does a "Realistic" photo cross the magic line and become "Abstract"? a) Unrecognizable content? b) Symbolism? c) ...

For me abstract is when I say..... "What the hell is that?"

I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com

LoL @ Michelle...Love your definition, simple and straight forward. One definition the dictionary gives is: "Difficult to understand". That sums it up for me. I've seen abstract pieces where some things are vaguely recognizable after studying the piece. I do agree that people will have their different views on what is or isn't abstract :) Shannon

abstract must tell something. Eyecatching or emotional. Maybe you can be touched by the way you see a composition of lines or colorshapes. Somtimes abstracted reality, sometimes blow outs of macro-images, there is no line to cross, its a feeling, or pmaybe an impression, but still the rules are the same, balance and composition. Fractals for instance are abstract, but lots of people likes them.RS

hmmm....rocs, not sure it has to tell or mean anything to be abstract... look at the early examples of abstract art - a small black circle next to a big red square means nothing to me and evokes no emotion other than curiosity at the state of mind of the person that pays 50,000 for it..... but it's definately still abstract. Abstract imo is simply something out of the ordinary that you wouldn't expect to see. Like most of my comments. But not the dirty ones, coz you expect that from me. I think. (",)

From my text book ArtForms 7th Edition by Duane & Sarah Preble: In art, the word abstract can mean either (1) works of art that have no reference at all to natural objects, or (2) works that depict natural objects in simplified, distorted, or exaggerated ways. A couple of examples: The well known sculptor Constantin Brancusi. A well know Expressionist painter Wassily Kandinsky. Of course these are not photographers or photographs....I can't think of anyone off the top of my head.

I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com

Alright Mike, I try to tell, do you like it or not. You're richt, Appels bluecanvas with dog like red spot and the blue lady of piccasso are both abstract, But you can see something in it. Its a matter of taste to feel someting for it. Discutable anyway. This enlarging of a exploded tree can be abstract, but its still a texture to

Whoa. So I guess a picture of a giant Line is not abstract? I mean sure the subject is straight forward BUT the meaning is vague. I'm so confused. Bsteph

i'm with 'chelle- a headscratcher a whatzit a hmmmm a wtf? :D

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Maybe, you were a bit too abstract?

doca hehe! I'm not sure Michelle's original answer, "What the hell is that?", helped much. 4/5ths of my photos (I never post) could be described that way. The textbook answer helped more, but at the risk of being annoying, not sure I understand it either. I can relate to Jordy's answer; sometimes I wander around the "Modern" gallery at Chicago Art Institute. Some of the works look significant, but most are of the "Black Circle" variety. Most of the comments are similar to, "Is that Art, or did someone just spill paint on that ladder?" The good stuff, maybe Picasso to name one, I can appreciate as actually taking skill. I'd not be able to duplicate the same effect. This isn't really a rant. This should be an interesting month as we explore the topic.