Here is an example of original abstract art. I captured it as soon as it appeared in the view-finder. I hope you can see why – everyone likes humming-birds?
The subject is Phalaenopsis, taken in occluded natural light. Much of the flower is in deep shadow. I do this to bring out sharp shapes. It is not like a flower. It is abstract.
I think it is valid and creative, satisfying my usual criteria. Following Kandinsky, I would hope that it represents some aspect of the spirit of the flower on which it’s based – one could imagine humming-birds having intense relationships with Phalaenopsis.
I hope that Paul Klee would accept that it is not the fruit of the conscious mind – there was no pre-meditation.
Mondrian would want the composition to be simple and pure, but not static. I hope that that is so. There is strong movement away from the centre towards the top right. There are small secondary images to provide dynamic balance and a base.
The figure itself is very intensely lit, and I would want Rothko and Pollock to approve. I have presented other, similar images in my galleries http://www.wild-haven.co.uk/gallery/.
The interesting question for me is how much, if any, of this sort of analysis takes place in my mind before the moment of capture. Or was the capture triggered by something quite different, unconscious, incapable of examination? I hope that it is the latter, as that makes the process entirely mysterious.
In my article at https://issuu.com/barriedalesa/docs/issue_article_5 . I have justified my way of working.
I would like this to be at least one way in which original abstract art can come about.