Having now been involved in the world of abstract photography for almost a year, I keep running up against something I’d never thought of before.
Do traditionalist photographers recognize abstract photography as real photography? Would they perhaps prefer that it simply be called art … so as to stop confusing the issue.
There’s definitely a slight bias against photographs that are purely abstract. Even though my work does indeed
capture something tangible and essential in the real world (as opposed to being created in a computer program), there’s nothing you can see in most of them to actually tie them to a physical reality as we know it. As a result, for most people they’re more like abstract paintings than photographs. My opinion is that I’m a photographer. I just do things a little differently. Mary Virginia Swanson, my wonderful mentor, suggested I call myself a visual artist. Although that’s true if interpreted correctly, it could also insinuate that I use software to aide in the creation of my photographs. But I don’t. Oddly enough, that fact actually makes my Photo Luminism works far more purist than the majority of photography these days as almost everyone manipulates their photos. In fact manipulation has always been a part of the art of photography; it’s the image on paper that’s the photographer’s final vision, not the one he captured in the camera.
So where does this leave me? Stephen Perloff, the highly respected founder and editor of the iconic The Photo Review magazine recently made a comment about my work that really brought my attention to this issue. But what makes his statement all the more interesting is that it’s also complimentary:
“Photography has a traditional tie to reality, and partly because of that I think it’s rare that it does abstraction well. Yet there’s something quite engaging about your pictures. Yes, like Pollock, there are references that we make to ‘reality.’ But their photographic aspect is only an artifact of their making. They are images that stand on their own, floating free of any lens-based expectations.”
Clearly it’s the first sentence that raises the question that hasn’t been answered in the eyes of many. But at the same time Stephen also explains in his inimitable and very intellectual way what he feels my work actually is: Although photographic in nature, the images are works of art that bear no resemblance to photographs because they don’t represent anything that is traditionally photographic in nature.
The trouble is, despite all these good words, I’m really no closer to figuring it out. I am both a photographer and artist.
So I think I’ll just call myself a Phartist.
Originally published 09.11.2012