Abstraction by general definition and practice is the deconstruction of a recognizable subject into the unrecognizable, the indefinite, or nothingness. Most often associated with painting and sculpture: think Picasso, Jackson Pollock, Georgia O'Keeffe (you can picture some of their works) or Claes Oldenburg, Henry Moore, or Alexander Calder (uhhhh, the mobile guy?). Because it doesn’t lend itself to the familiar or comfortable or classically beautiful, abstraction in any medium has been underappreciated if not ignored. 

Abstract photography is even more obscure. When photography was only black and white, abstracts were usually macros -- extreme close-ups that removed context and focused on detail rather than the entire subject. Another popular technique in abstract photography is blurring, accomplished by allowing long exposure times, jiggling the physical camera while shooting, or using a distortion lens such as a fish-eye or a light-scrambling filter. With minimal effort, macros could often be identified as a particular part of a whole; blurred images were harder to pinpoint but needed to retain at least a geometric resemblance to their origin to avoid being written off completely. 

So, what’s the stuff in here? Nearly unclassifiable! I’ve been baffling art show directors and viewers for years! I don’t blur much. I employ macro perspectives sometimes. I shoot images that aren't real “objects” in the first place. If you will, these are Abstracts to the Second Power (AB²), in which I seek an image within an image by using imagination. Hm. That’s almost AB³, in’t it? Well, go look. I think you’ll See what Eye mean.