Frank was the first to answer on November 6th 2017. He said: “Well; the walls, the cityscape, the portrait, the photos of abstract(?) or not so abstract paintings and that stillife aren’t abstract at all. When it comes to the headless nude some could argue that by removing her head and the hands she is to some degree abstract(ed). (No identity). Still it’s a lady sitting in a bathtub, for that reason I wouldn’t call it abstract photography.” Did think about that answer for a while and wrote: “Would you say that abstract photography is ‘taking a picture of something abstract or an abstraction’?” The answer came a few second laters: “No I wouldn’t. I would say abstract photography is: creating something that will be (perceived as) abstract or an abstraction BY ITSELF.” Did think and added: “So abstract photography is definided by the result and not by the subject for you?” And the answer was: “Yes, absolutely! It’s the result of a technical and/or mental process.”
Sora and Pavel did agree to some degree. Their answers were: “Not abstract!”. Did ask them both: “What about that lady in the bathtub? Couldn’t someone argue and say that she has no identity and is therefore reduced to an abstraction? And isn’t the photo of an abstraction in some way Abstract Photography?”. Pavel was the first to answer: “No!!!! Abstract photography is abstract by itself.”
And because I wasn’t sure, I thanked Frank and Pavel and closed the chats for a while.
In the evening I posted “Frozen” and right after I asked Frank and Pavel for a source with a good definition of Abstract Photography.
Was just closing FB for that day when Frank said: “There is no such thing as a ‘DEFINITION’. Abstract Photography is a concept or an approach!”
365 days later I’m not looking for definitions anymore but hoping that I will be able to approach the source of “Frozen”.