About Abstract (si)

There are interesting from this picture because the picture is categorized as ABSTRACT ... there's nothing wrong with this, because I also some time ago often include photos - my photos in an abstract category, although not necessarily correct.
I really ga pengkategorisasian too dizzy with this, but the photographer asked me to talk about the ABSTRACT. [quote (by PM): "there is a problem with the abstract? let's discuss!"].

so here it is ...

according to the online Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
(I take adjectives aja):
ab stract • adj., noun, verb
adj.
1 based on general ideas and not on any particular real person, thing or situation: abstract knowledge / principles The research shows that preschool children are capable of thinking in abstract concrete compare terms.-adj. (2)
2 existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical reality: We may talk of beautiful things but beauty itself is abstract.
3 (of art) not Representing people or things in a realistic way, but expressing the artist's ideas about them: the work of American abstract expressionists like Mark Rothko, compare figurative (2), representational

Probably still simple ... This is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, of Abstract Objects ...
well, actually, I quote only a few important things ...

It is widely supposed that every object falls into one of two categories: Some things are concrete; the rest abstract. The distinction is supposed to be of fundamental significance for Metaphysics and epistemology.
The abstract / concrete distinction has a curious status in contemporary philosophy. It is widely agreed that the distinction is of fundamental importance. But there is no standard account of how the distinction is to be explained. There is a great deal of agreement about how to classify certain paradigm cases. Thus it is universally acknowledged that numbers and the other objects of pure mathematics are abstract, whereas rocks and trees and human beings are concrete.

Here could be arrested that the distinction between concrete and abstract to have a very fundamental interests, but unfortunately there is no standard how to explain the difference between concrete and abstract, that there is only a general agreement.

The challenge remains, however, to say what underlies this alleged dichotomy. In the Absence of such an account, the philosophical significance of the contrast remains uncertain. We may know how to classify things as abstract or concrete by appeal to "intuition". But unless we know what makes for abstractness and concreteness, we can not know what (if anything) hangs on the classification.

We may know what is abstract and concrete in intuition, but without us knowing what makes it immateriality and concreteness, we will not know to classify.
In it (if there is time and interest, please read it), mentioned one way (first - first) for the distinction of abstract - concrete is a WAY OF NEGATING
Abstract objects are defined as those that lack certain features possessed by paradigmatic concrete things. Nearly every explicit Characterization in the literature has this feature. There are, however, several significant difficulties with this approach, at least in its most familiar implementations.
in addition make WAY OF NEGATING, there are three other strategies for differentiation ABSTRACT - concrete, namely:
WAY OF EXAMPLE, which he said is enough to register an example - an example abstract - concrete, with the hope that the distinction would present itself. "It suffices to list paradigm cases of abstract and concrete entities in the hope that the sense of the distinction will somehow emerge."
WAY OF CONFLATION, according to which the distinction between abstract - concrete can be known through with another distinction that first familiar, such as the distinction between the public - specifically, the group - individual. "According to the Way of Conflation, the abstract / concrete distinction is to be identified with one or another distinction Metaphysical already familiar under another name: as it might be, the distinction between sets and individuals, or the distinction between universals and particulars.
WAY OF Abstraction, which he said abstraction is an activity where ideas / new conception occurs with "collecting" some object or idea and then identify the features that unite them. For example, collecting some white objects with varying shapes and sizes, and then identify their unifying feature of "white". Well, "white" which is the ABSTRACKTION, while the objects - the white stuff that it is concrete. "Distinctive abstraction is a mental process in which new ideas or conceptions are formed by considering several objects or ideas and omitting the features that Distinguished them. One is given a range of white things of varying shapes and sizes; one ignores or "abstracts from" the respects in which they differ, and thereby attains the abstract idea of whiteness.
from here I want to criticize these images (using the WAY OF Abstraction):
This photo technicality good, but cannot be categorized as an abstract object. This will always happen in every work of photography, or any work that manifests in physical form.
but, what if this picture was just represents an abstract idea? In this case "Waton alon2 success". If proved true, it is open to question ...