Correctly labelled

Some close-up images today which when I first produced them and today when I pulled them out of Lightroom to use in this post I had tagged as “abstract”. However looking at them after a certain period of time has passed has made me realise that they are not abstract images, but close-up photographs.

I checked on Wikipedia as to what they have defined as an abstract photograph and it says:

Abstract photography, sometimes called non-objective, experimental, conceptual or concrete photography, is a means of depicting a visual image that does not have an immediate association with the object world and that has been created through the use of photographic equipment, processes or materials.

The Tate gallery itself states that:

Abstract art is art that does not attempt to represent an accurate depiction of a visual reality but instead use shapes, colours, forms and gestural marks to achieve its effect.

So, using that definition, we can be certain that none of the images I present here today are abstracts. They are all identifiable as well-known objects albeit perhaps taken at unusual angles. It seems to be that the term”abstract” is used very loosely these days and indeed if you went on any Flickr group that called itself abstract, I guarantee you would see an awful lot of photographs (probably very good ones) that have been labelled “abstract” but which do not fall into the definition.