I've been overseeing the Architecture Photography gallery for a couple of months now and often I would stumble upon deviations of abstract architectural patterns and details that I'd like to feature, but which would turn out to be submitted under Photography > Abstract & Surreal > Abstract. I never dared to move them, because they were indeed Abstract and it would be the artist's choice to submit them either in the Abstract & Surreal category or in any of the proper Architecture sections.
As these days I was doing some more research for the upcoming projecteducate week that will focus on Architecture Photography, I started to seriously question myself whether the Architecture gallery was indeed lacking a Photography > Architecture > Abstract sub-category. I believe the abstract architecture style is pretty strongly developed within the community, as it is a very personal and creative way of capturing architecture. It allows a great variety of results with a strong visual impact.
So to explain it to you a little better, if this sub-category was to be added, I would most likely describe it as:
Photographs in which a building, through clever use of composition and camera angles, is not actually recognizable as such. The result is a graphic image constructed purely from lines and shapes.
Here are a few examples:
I should remind you that the current Architecture sub-categories are defined according to the nature of the main subject photographed: Bridges & Suspended Structures, Exterior of a building, Interior of a building, Statues & Monuments. Unlike the mentioned sub-categories, this new one that I'm suggesting is not about what is photographed, but about how it is photographed and the visual impact it creates.
Now I'd be all for this addition, but I need to know your opinion! Here are some questions that you could ask yourselves:
- Is there a need for an Abstract Architecture sub-category, or should these photographs be submitted in Abstract & Surreal?
- Will people really have the reflex to check out the Architecture gallery in their search for Abstract photographs?
- Should the Architecture gallery stick to its current division according to the nature of the central element photographed, or does it allow for a style-related sub-category as well?
- Will this new sub-category be relevant enough, or will it overlap with the currently existing ones?
I'm really looking forward to hearing your opinions on this! Even if the suggestion happens to be relevant, it won't be implemented unless the community (and that means you!) finds it necessary. So please comment below with what you have to say on the topic and feel free to leave any other suggestions that you might have!
Two days into the discussion, and I already read many opinions on this matter! Thank you! I'm going to try to recap your feedback so far and introduce you to the new turn that this discussion has taken.
So most of you consider that an emphasis on 'architecture' in an abstract photograph would defeat the purpose of Abstract or, basically, that the object is of no importance whatsoever in an abstract photograph. People should only see the non-figurative, graphic outcome. I have to agree with this. For more on this topic see: comments.deviantart.com/1/3094…
Some others went further to suggest that, if Architecture would have an Abstract sub-category, one should also be added to Animals, Plants & Nature, or to Macro photography or many others. But that would basically go against the purpose of Abstract, as stated before, and would put an end to the Abstract gallery in general. Do people care about what's portrayed in an abstract photograph? Probably not. That means that browsing through figurative categories, such as Architecture, in order to reach for abstract works wouldn't make much sense.
But at the same time, I still think the Architecture category would need a sub-category for close-ups, details, that don't really find their place in Exterior or Interior photographs, which imply something wider. Think of doors, windows, patterns... little elements that don't necessarily look for an abstract visual impact, but just zoom on the small things that compose a building and gives it a human scale.
These are a few examples of what I'm talking about:
- Do you think these should remain in their existing categories with all the Exterior and Interior photographs, or do you believe there's a need for an addition of a Photography > Architecture > Details gallery?
- Is a 'Details' addition to the category really essential, or do these photographs find their legitimate place in the current divisions?
Please join/continue the discussion!