 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Does an image *need* a 'meaningful' title so that the viewer understands
more readily what is going on?
I understand that some images may be obvious, but what if they're not to
the viewer?
I'm having problems at the moment with what to name some of my <hopefully!>
minimalism images, (about five of them).
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Does an image *need* a 'meaningful' title so that the viewer understands
> more readily what is going on?
>
> I understand that some images may be obvious, but what if they're not
> to the viewer?
>
> I'm having problems at the moment with what to name some of my
> <hopefully!> minimalism images, (about five of them).
>
> ~Steve~
>
After looking up a lot of the minimalist artists and their works I'm
beginning to think minimalism means not having anything going on. Very
basic nothings seems to be the key.
Maybe a series... nothing #1, nothing #2 etc...
RG
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"gonzo" <rgo### [at] lanset com> wrote in message
news:42eecbe7$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> Does an image *need* a 'meaningful' title so that the viewer understands
>> more readily what is going on?
>>
>> I understand that some images may be obvious, but what if they're not to
>> the viewer?
>>
>> I'm having problems at the moment with what to name some of my
>> <hopefully!> minimalism images, (about five of them).
> After looking up a lot of the minimalist artists and their works I'm
> beginning to think minimalism means not having anything going on. Very
> basic nothings seems to be the key.
>
> Maybe a series... nothing #1, nothing #2 etc...
Yeah, thanks Ron, I see where this is heading for me and your suggestion
seems reasonable, although, I have different subjects for each image.
I dunno, I'll have a think about it.
~Steve~
>
> RG
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well you can provide a description in the text file, so really the title
needn't explain anything. Though I suppose that raises the question
should you provide a description?
Tek
St. wrote:
> Does an image *need* a 'meaningful' title so that the viewer understands
> more readily what is going on?
>
> I understand that some images may be obvious, but what if they're not
> to the viewer?
>
> I'm having problems at the moment with what to name some of my
> <hopefully!> minimalism images, (about five of them).
>
> ~Steve~
>
>
>
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message
news:431565ee@news.povray.org...
> Well you can provide a description in the text file, so really the title
> needn't explain anything. Though I suppose that raises the question should
> you provide a description?
Ah! Yes, Tek. Good question. I always thought 'minimalism' should be
self explanatory?
~Steve~
>
> Tek
>
> St. wrote:
>> Does an image *need* a 'meaningful' title so that the viewer understands
>> more readily what is going on?
>>
>> I understand that some images may be obvious, but what if they're not to
>> the viewer?
>>
>> I'm having problems at the moment with what to name some of my
>> <hopefully!> minimalism images, (about five of them).
>>
>> ~Steve~
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
