...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~

Post a reply to this message

"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. 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.

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.

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.

Post a reply to this message

"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

This quote seems adequate to indicating what Minimalism as a
movement was.
What Neo-Miniamlism might be as expressed in this IRTC round
remains to be seen.

/*
http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/glossary_Minimalism.html

Minimalism
New York, 1960s
Though never a self-proclaimed movement, Minimalism refers
to painting or sculpture made with an extreme economy of means
and reduced to the essentials of geometric abstraction. It applies
to sculptural works by such artists as Carl Andre, Dan Flavin,
Donald Judd, Ellsworth Kelly, John McCracken, Robert Morris,
Richard Serra, Tony Smith, and Anne Truitt; to the shaped and
striped canvases of Frank Stella; and to paintings by Jo Baer,
Ellsworth Kelly, Robert Mangold, Brice Marden, Agnes Martin,
and Robert Ryman. Minimalist art is generally characterized by
precise, hard-edged, unitary geometric forms; rigid planes of

sometimes just a single color; nonhierarchical, mathematically
regular compositions, often based on a grid; the reduction to
pure self-referential form, emptied of all external references;
and an anonymous surface appearance, without any gestural
inflection. As a result of these formal attributes, this art has
also been referred to as ABC art, Cool art, Imageless Pop,
Literalist art, Object art, and Primary Structure art. Minimalist
art shares Pop art's rejection of the artistic subjectivity and
heroic gesture of Abstract Expressionism.In Minimal art what
is important is the phenomenological basis of the viewer's
experience, how he or she perceives the internal relationships
among the parts of the work and of the parts to the whole,
as in the gestalt aspect of Morris's sculpture. The repetition
of forms in Minimalist sculpture serves to emphasize the subtle
differences in the perception of those forms in space
and time as the spectator's viewpoint shifts in time and space.
*/

Post a reply to this message

"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>.  ;)
>

Being the cynical person that I am, I kind of wonder how many of the people 
that voted for "minimalism" wanted to make something "really small."  I'll 
be surprised if there are not a large number of submissions that prefer the 
"really small" definition.

If someone else hasn't already made the joke (I'm betting they have), the 
reflective sphere on checkered plane would probably work pretty well...  ;-)

-- 
Jeremy M. Praay
www.beantoad.com

Post a reply to this message

"Jeremy M. Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote:
> Being the cynical person that I am, I kind of wonder how many of the people
> that voted for "minimalism" wanted to make something "really small."  I'll
> be surprised if there are not a large number of submissions that prefer the
> "really small" definition.

  I must confess I partially did. I made a "technical" entry and a small
code one. I like the principle of the Short Code Contest, but there has
been no round since I started POV-Ray: it is a good opportunity to try it.

  It would be fun if some people try it too. The principle is to make an
interesting image in less than 256 characters of POV-Ray code (without
include, image_map etc.)

Post a reply to this message