Is 'photographic abstractionism' a self contradiction? Is it more accurately artistic distortion? Maybe those are the same things ... only different. Abstractionism was always an artistic distortion. Or was it an accurate personal revelation of a particular viewpoint?
There are enough common, foundational experiences of our world that we can be confident that, even to the artist, there were distortions of the thing represented relative to the perception of it. Of course, in many if not the majority of cases, the subject depicted never actually existed in reality. It was a complete figment but it was always analogous to real experiences ... and distorted even in that context. The intent - to evoke ... not remind. Of course, Pavlovian association can be leveraged to evoke subconscious response and so, reminiscent associations are a crucial element of evocative art.
This image has been distorted. Not warped. Just modifed. It is abstract in feel. A valid abstraction even though it uses a photographic medium. It's not depictive ... but it is definitive :)
that was fun ... complete nonsense ... but fun :) I've decided that the best blogs make you think. They don't necessarily make you agree ... but they challenge your sensibilities.