On October 27th 2017 John had an answer.
He said: “A house has a concrete and physical existence. You can touch and see it and therefore it is not abstract. The same does apply to shadows and reflections. Abstract means: existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence. Things like joy for example. You can not touch, taste, view, smell or see joy. You can see or touch people that are happy. Ok?”
Did think and wrote: “Would still say that ‘a house’ is not concrete for me until I run into a specific one and hit my nose on the wall, or until you speak about ‘the house over there’ I can see and touch, etc. But when you tell me that shadows or reflections have a concrete and physical existence because you can see and touch them, I can hear a voice in my head say “SOS!! This is more than what is acceptable for my sanity!” and I wonder how you define existence. But as I did decide not to discuss today and as I got the idea I will say ‘ok’. So here comes my next question: why do I have to know all that when it comes to abstract photography? Is it relevant? Perhaps because abstract photography is about subjects that are or can be considered as abstract?”
And because on that day I came across a subject that did remind me of the movie “Matrix” and a Bob Marley song and made me start to dance on the street, I took a picture and posted “Who shot the sheriff?”
365 days later I wonder if the corpse is back in the matrix, or if it does still exist.
What do you think?