Photographic (Artistic) ‘Content’ is probably an easier concept to understand and accept. The basic definition of ‘content’ is that its information. My dictionary states “The meaning (there’s that other bugaboo word) or significance of an artistic work as distinguished from its form”. Another is reference is ‘context’, which we see frequently as it relates to a photographic (artisitic) image.
There’s no disagreement that a photographic image is realy made up of really tiny bits of either black or white, but from a viewing distance, takes on form. The forms create recognizable symbols that we recognize and we provide titles to; e.g. that square shape with darker tone on one side and lighter tone on the top is a ‘house’.
The image then has content (information) of which we may or may not recognize and it may or may not ‘mean’ anything to us. As the viewer, the recognizable content will vary based on the relative experiences. If you have never seen a house before, you may not recognize the image forms as a symbol for a house.
Perhaps this is the rub with abstract images, that there is content but it is not easily understood as to what the information is. So therefore if there is form but it is not information, but it creates an experience, you are left with what that experiene ‘means‘ to you or I. My reason for why an image has ‘meaning’ as well as content and form.
BTW, this image is from my series; Insomnia: Hotel Noir. The content and the meaning will vary;- )
Best regards, Doug