Minor White on Equivalence

It is not only with the more abstractified type of photography that the question arises of how much of the perception of an image is driven by the viewer. But the more abstract a photography is the larger the role of the viewer is: his imagination, his experience, his current state of mind.
The more explicit an image is the less is left to the imagination of the viewer.
Surfing around I stumbled across an essay by the photographer Minor White on what Alfred Stieglitz and others called "Equivalence". You can read Minor White's essay here.
As the perception of "Equivalence" relies solely on the imagination of the viewer there must be different classes of viewers out there. And some which Minor White was not very fond of: "And we observe that all too often the persons who cry "Sick, Sick, Sick" have no imagination. Or, for reasons obscure to them, they deliberately blind themselves to visual experiences that might disturb their basic insecurity."
When reading his comments I started to think of whether they might be still valid as of today, more than 50 years later. Well, I think the flood of images now molding current viewers is still mostly non-abstract - so abstract images might still be hard to grasp for todays average recipients.
But that is my honest opinion - and open to debate. I'd love to hear your commentaries on this topic!

Surreal = not quite real?

Well I thought I looked quite astonished when I stumbled across this wedding scene:



The photographer was shooting the kissing couple while behind him some (un)invited guests were serenely watching. What a hilarious scene this was!
I raised my camera and found out that didn't have anything longer than a lowly 35mm lens mounted and - as I didn't want to intrude - had to make do with the equipment at hand. Fortunately the "normal" lens and a little cropping were enough to capture the surreal flavor of this vista - my first wedding shot!
According to Wikipedia "Surreal in general means bizarre or dreamlike". So I claim that this image has a place right here, although it is not "abstract" - but it is "not quite real" either.

White Wine with the Fish?

This is absurd: You're looking at some random abstract figure and imagine seeing things! I imagined seeing a fish in this rust-image I captured the other day when visiting one of my favorite subjects in the vicinity: a derelict rusty old excavator.
As always with rusty material you don't need much to get crazy colors not only in the oranges but also in the blues:

Fish:


Interestingly I captured this image after having been there many times before. So it always pays to revisit certain locations again and again to cover all the possibilities...

Black (and white) Sunflower

I captured another view in this sunflower field. This time of two single flowers. I went for a b&w conversion - just out of gut feeling.

Chaos

I was standing in front of this field of snow-capped sunflowers wondering whether I could produce an image that conveyed the decay of the flowers, the jumble of their stalks, and the eerie atmosphere of a field of flowers that belong to summer shivering in the cold of winter. I made a lot of shots, naturally also with close-ups of single flowers, but I found the visual chaos of this specific shot fitting.

Sunflower Field:


In post I chose an amplification of the brown-reds and a yellowish tint for the snow which emphasized the drabness of the scene.
Best viewed at 1024 or 1920 width, so feel free to click through the image to the larger versions...

Fractured Urbania

There is a very interesting attempt at abstract photography over here called "Fractured Urbania". It is obviously inspired by David Hockney and it is the first of this kind that I've seen somewhere on a photography site. But that may be due to me not surfing enough ;-)


This image is copyright by Chris Heilman 2010. Click through the image for a larger version.

Chris wrote about his image: "A great deal of my photography is about photography. In this case [...] the photographs are overtly about construction of new, large scale urban development. Breaking the photograph up this way suggests impermanence, ... or what? an artificial facade? The picture is an expression of this."

I find it highly interesting but have no clue as to how it was produced. But I'm a little weary as to what is the goal of these images and how this goal is supported by this special technique. As I wrote in a commentary there: "In the case of both images above I'm a little unsure what the topic/theme of those images is. The consequence is that I have the feeling the technique is a little "l'art pour l'art" (if you excuse my French!)... But nice technique nonetheless." To which Chris answered. "This is not the first time I have heard this criticism of my work, and I accept that there is validity to it. Given that, I feel that my themes are perhaps too personally coded to be easily accessible."

I think his remark hits on an often recurring theme with photographs that are more than just snapshots or "postcards": What is the intention of the photographer behind or beyond what can readily be seen in the image?

Branching, Trees, Black & White

Coming back to one of my favorite subject: Trees.
Fractal structure, blending one typical macro form with different micro-structures they are fascinating all around the year.
So fall/winter is a good time to marvel about the inherent structure of trees, with the camouflage of the leaves gone, the colors stripped. Add to that some aggressive curves, catapulting any colors into either black or white and you reduced the tree(s) to some primeval forms.
I called it

Branching: