In the early 20th century, the Pictorialism Movement aimed to position photography as a fine art by imitating the soft, expressive qualities of painting. Pictorialist photographers often used blurring, soft focus, and careful manipulation during printing to create romantic or symbolic images. The goal was not just to capture reality, but to elevate photography to the level of emotional and artistic expression.

The Straight Photography Movement, which followed shortly after, took a very different approach. It emphasized clarity, sharp focus, and truthful representation of the subject. Straight photographers embraced the technical precision of the camera to reveal form, texture, and light without manipulation. They believed that photography had its own visual power that didn’t need to borrow from painting or other art forms.

The two movements differ significantly: where pictorialism focused on mood and atmosphere through manipulation, straight photography celebrated detail and objectivity. Many photographers found straight photography appealing because it allowed them to explore the beauty of ordinary objects and scenes through structure, line, and natural light — creating images that were powerful in their simplicity and truth.

Edward Weston and Aaron Siskind were both strongly influenced by the principles of straight photography. Weston’s Pepper No. 30 (1930) is a perfect example. Using a large-format camera and natural light, Weston captured a simple bell pepper with such precision and care that it becomes almost sculptural. The curves, shadows, and texture transform the object into something abstract and powerful. This approach reflects straight photography’s emphasis on form and detail without any manipulation — allowing the subject to speak for itself.
(Source: The Art Story – Edward Weston)

Aaron Siskind, while also influenced by straight photography, took it in a slightly different direction. He focused on textures, surfaces, and patterns — such as peeling paint or decaying walls — often removing context so completely that the subject becomes nearly unrecognizable. This created abstraction through realism: what you’re seeing is real, but without context, it becomes visual language made of shape and contrast.

Contemporary photographers like Uta Barth and Andreas Gursky continue to explore abstraction, though in more conceptual ways. Barth’s Field #9 (1996), part of the MoMA Collection, removes any clear subject, using blur and soft light to make the viewer focus on perception itself. Her work does not fit easily into the category of either pictorialist or straight photographer. While she uses softness like a pictorialist might, her conceptual focus on how we see is uniquely contemporary.

Andreas Gursky, on the other hand, creates large-scale, hyper-detailed photographs that capture overwhelming patterns in modern life — like supermarket aisles or office buildings. His images are clear and precise, but their scale, composition, and sometimes digital manipulation push them into abstraction. While Gursky shares straight photography’s attention to detail, his conceptual manipulation distances him from its traditional values.

Another artist worth noting is Albert Renger-Patzsch, whose photograph Aloe (c. 1920s), held in the Tate Collection, captures a plant in sharp focus, emphasizing its structure and surface. His work exemplifies straight photography’s focus on natural beauty, geometry, and unfiltered observation.

Overall, these artists — from Weston and Siskind to Barth and Gursky — show that abstraction in photography can be achieved in different ways: through clarity, isolation, blur, or scale. Whether rooted in realism or conceptual experimentation, abstract photography challenges us to see beyond the literal and engage with form, pattern, and perception itself.

Photo References:

  • Edward Weston, Pepper No. 30, 1930

  • Albert Renger-Patzsch, Aloe, c. 1920s

  • Uta Barth, Field #9, 1996