Talk:Abstract photography

Proposed merge with Abstract art

Merge proposal closed as rejected. Samsara 23:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article gets into specifics about a type of abstract art that isn't mentioned in the abstract art article itself. It mentions paintings and other types of abstract arts, but not photography. Thebestofall007 (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose merge, as abstract photography is a specific sub-genre of fine-art photography and definitely deserves a stand alone article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose any merger. While the two articles have some aspects in common, there are significant differences in the artists, concepts and materials. Lexaxis7 (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the merger; each subject is complex enough as it is. "If it's too big to fail, it's too big."BonniekuhnGMA (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both are stand-alone articles. Gmcbjames (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are the posts by User:Syncrow self-promotion?

The recent posts in the article by User:Syncrow appear to fall into the self-promotion category. Does anyone have additional information about these posts? Lexaxis7 (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Laxaxis7, if you have doubts about the uniqueness of Neumann's works, please check his website with scans/references about his art. It's all in German though :-( http://chemogramme.de/literaturhinweise/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syncrow (talk • contribs) 18:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abstract photography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402085938/http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/remain_in_light/ to http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/remain_in_light/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]