"Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote in message 
news:42ced556$1@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:42cea765$1@news.povray.org...
>> ...I would like to think that this subject might break all submission
>> records for the IRTC. And, I guess I'd better brush up on my radiosity
>> settings, which at the moment, are <0, 0, 0>.  ;)
>>
>>    ~Steve~
>>
>>
>>
>
> It's actually a pretty tough subject I think. I did some searches for
> examples of minimalist art. While they were minimal, they were still 
> really
> interesting. Try doing that, and being successfull at it. There is a
> difference between apparent simplicity and simplicity.

  Yes, I searched too, but I think the answer is that the simplicity used 
has to have 'something' different about it in the final image.


I think Tek's example
> of glass recently in p.b.i was almost spot on for minimalism. Nothing
> distracts from the image, but it's not just a glass object on a plain
> background.

  Yeah, that's nice.



>
> I think the trick of pulling off minimalism is making the viewer think 
> it's
> simpler than it is, while still maintaining whatever other "-ism" your are
> trying to do... realism, surrealism, cubism, etc.

     Can any of these be used *under* the catagory of 'minimalism'? 
Obviously, cubism could come under this catagory, but can surrealism?


>
> In a short hour I banged out something I liked. It could take days 
> refining
> it though. This round opens itself up to a study in lighting, composition,
> and realistic textures.

 Well, I've done something I like, but I have no idea whether it's 
minimalism or not. Take a look in p.b.i.

     ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message