Is this abstract????

[samhail]

This may be the wrong forum to place this so feel free to move it if need be.

I took this photo the other night so I could submit it into a local camera club photo contest, the theme being "Abstract". Many photos (including this one) were given poor scores and harsh remarks because the judges felt they did not meet the definition of abstract which they said should be unrecognizable. I have found two definitions for abstract: 1. Objective abstract art will present a recognizable subject in an unusual way. 2. Non-objective abstract art will present lines, form and colors full of light and energy that flow from an non recognizable subject.
Obviously I though it was abstract since I submitted it that way.
My question for you is: Do you think this is Abstract? Why?
Feel free to critique the photo. If you don't think it is abstract then please tell me why.I'm here to learn.

PS The photo is of fingers with food coloring.
EXIF
Camera: Pentax K100D
Exposure: 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture: f/22.0
Focal Length: 100 mm
ISO Speed: 800
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Flash: On, Fired

[Hayward Taylor]

Hi Sam - ... you might want to try the Critique section if you really want a serious answer .. we just share photos here ... good luck

[junglebear]

Well I would say it isn't abstract, because I can instantly recognise the subject as a finger.
A good example of abstract that I can remember seeing is here

[Nicole]

Just popped this over to critique for you. I guess from your first description it could fit an abstract because it presents the fingers in a kind of unusual way, but I feel more like it's not an abstract just because it's very recognisably fingers. That being said, I wouldn't actually be sure of how to change this particular subject to something that I would consider to be more abstract.

[Heatcliff]

Try looking at the definition of abstract

Still, I'd say this has a certain level of abstractness.

I also like the photo, although it is a bit grainy, especially in the darker blue region which is a tad distracting.

[wulf]

The question is whether your picture is of some coloured fingers, in which case it is a representational image, or whether the colours, textures and juxtaposition are conveying something else.

What kind of images won the contest?

Wulf

[samhail]

Originally Posted by Heatcliff

Try looking at the definition of abstract

Still, I'd say this has a certain level of abstractness.

I also like the photo, although it is a bit grainy, especially in the darker blue region which is a tad distracting.

Thanks Heatcliff, but if you read my post you would have seen that I did read the definition and found two of them. I also wrote them in the post.

[samhail]

Originally Posted by wulf

The question is whether your picture is of some coloured fingers, in which case it is a representational image, or whether the colours, textures and juxtaposition are conveying something else.

What kind of images won the contest?

Wulf

thanks for you reply Wulf. When I took it I was taking a picture of some colored fingers. I guess I thought it wouldn't have been so recognizable. I'll do better next time. As for what picture won it was a close up of an ornament with light reflections. It was however unrecognizable and looked like a picture of a nebula. I guess that's why it won. I had no problem with the judges comments or decisions. My problem lies more with the club itself for not defining the definition of abstract before the contest, especially since ther are two definitions for it.

[BCampbell]

Number one, if there are judges, everything will be up to their determination, even if that determination is not necessarily in line with what you, other people, or even some authority thinks is correct. The lesson here is that sometimes you have to throw up your hands and say "whatever".

I'm not sure where your definition of abstract art is coming from, but the genre is a pretty wide umbrella and has a rich history. You probably would have been best off visiting a library or bookstore and looking at a few books to get a good overview. But, generally, abstract art separates the image from what it literally represents. This can be done any number of ways, but in your photo what we really have is a very close shot of some fingers. They literally represent fingers, and are recognizable and understandable as fingers, so no, it is not very abstract. The use of color and shape is nearing abstraction, so I think you were getting there, but just not quite.

It's pretty hard to condense all of abstract art into a post here, though, so I suggest doing some reading on your own. Sounds like this is a great opportunity to expand your work and incorporate something new into your photographic voice.

[wulf]

Don't just read. For once, you should be looking at the pictures more than the words. Try and find a few books on major artists producing abstract work. Find out more about what made them tick and, above all, take a long look at their pictures. What were painters like Mondrian and Rothko all about? Just random patterns of pretty colours or something deeper?

Wulf