Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
> Smini Mali?  What's that?  ;)
>
> --
> Tim Cook

IS MINIMAL

I'm a Lismin?

Post a reply to this message

Stop it! You're making the rest of us look bad.

-- 
"The  rules  of  programming  are  transitory;  only  Tao  is  eternal.
 Therefore you  must contemplate Tao before you receive  enlightenment."
"How will I know when I have received enlightenment?"  asked the novice.
"Your program will then run correctly," replied the master.

Post a reply to this message

These really are very interesting. I hope to see more; don't get me wrong --
but can anything involving text truely be minimal? Isn't it using much MORE
to call upon a symbol, something that has been given a huge amount of
(memetic) meaning? When I think of minimalism, I tend to think of things
that are almost like a whack from a zen master- somethign for which we have
NO programmed response. Text is not elemental enough to invoke that almost
animal experience, of energy, or calm, or black, or division, that a
minimalist painting does so incredibly. I don't know if Barnett Newman
would have called himsef minimalist, but his Stations of the Cross are
possibly the best example I can think of. He takes something so incredibly
symbolized, with so much information attached to it, and strips all that
away.

I can't find any of the Stations online, but check out
http://www.moma.org/images/collection/FullSizes/00303074.jpg -- "Abraham"
A brilliant example of the least expenditure for an huge impact. Imagine
waking into a room with that painting in it, full size. It seizes the mind,
holds it where nothing but the energy of that central zip moves, in all of
space and time. It is steadfast, and fast, all at the same time. No symbol
could coherently hold all the meaning that painting does, despite the
symbol's inherent complexity.

Or something ;). I'm having trouble typing, so it's probably time to stop.

-s
5TF!

Post a reply to this message

stm31415 wrote:
> These really are very interesting. 

We have a current IRTC topic.  I think the topic affords participants 
something a bit unique from the other topics.  A kind of licence, so to 
speak, to ignore many of the requisites that usually accompany making 
and irtc entry.  This is an attempt to illustrate that.

I hope to see more; don't get me wrong --

Don't worry, I won't get you wrong.

> but can anything involving text truely be minimal? 

You can certainly go to more reductive extremes.  But text can be a 
vehicle for reductive strategies too I would think.

Isn't it using much MORE
> to call upon a symbol, something that has been given a huge amount of
> (memetic) meaning? 
"mimetic" as in copying?  Isn't the usual problem that the assumed 
meaning is arbitrary and local instead of universal?

Anyway, the whole story of how computers came to produce meanings is 
certainly an interesting one.  Haven't some argued that the breakthrough 
came with the realization that symbolism would be necessary?


When I think of minimalism, I tend to think of things
> that are almost like a whack from a zen master- somethign for which we have
> NO programmed response. Text is not elemental enough to invoke that almost
> animal experience, of energy, or calm, or black, or division, that a
> minimalist painting does so incredibly. I don't know if Barnett Newman
> would have called himsef minimalist, but his Stations of the Cross are
> possibly the best example I can think of. He takes something so incredibly
> symbolized, with so much information attached to it, and strips all that
> away.

see bottom
> 
> 
> least expenditure for an huge impact. 

  this criteria is as arbitrary as any btw, and is really just the 
result of trying to sift some significance from the label, "minimalism."
ie. 'How can something be "minimal?"' Must be a leverage sort of thing.

Imagine
> waking into a room with that painting in it, full size. It seizes the mind,
> holds it where nothing but the energy of that central zip moves, in all of
> space and time. It is steadfast, and fast, all at the same time. No symbol
> could coherently hold all the meaning that painting does, despite the
> symbol's inherent complexity.

So are you saying that painting is the only valid medium for a 
minimalist enterprise?  I don't really believe you are but it seems we 
should agree at this point that a more artificial and contrived thing 
than oil paint on stretched canvas is hard to imagine.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:

> We have a current IRTC topic.
>
ooh. I haven't been povving recently, so I hadn't looked. I may have to get
in on this one ;)

> > but can anything involving text truely be minimal?
>
> You can certainly go to more reductive extremes.  But text can be a
> vehicle for reductive strategies too I would think.
>
I would agree, with the caveat that text can be reductive ONLY if you manage
to force past the previous meaning of the words FIRST, then bring the
viewer back to what it says. Dada writings often made text meaningless;
you'd have to then return the meaning afterword - that would be a true
trick, and an excellent piece of art.


> "mimetic" as in copying?  Isn't the usual problem that the assumed
> meaning is arbitrary and local instead of universal?
>
Niether is the problem. The problem is that the format of your work
*itself*, that's the format, mind you, already has multiple, deep-seated
associations attached to it in everyone's mind. Whether or not they are the
same doesn't really matter; you are "thinking of a finger pointing at the
moon," not the moon itself.

> Anyway, the whole story of how computers came to produce meanings is
> certainly an interesting one.  Haven't some argued that the breakthrough
> came with the realization that symbolism would be necessary?
>
Oh, absolutely. That's actually rather brilliant. You'll be doing bookstore
coffeeshop poetry readings in no time ;).  But the symbolism itself was
truely minimal. 0. 1. Black. White. Something. Nothing. Very Tao, and very
difficult to represent in a beautiful, minimized way. (OT: Is the yin-yang
minimalist?). The computer had not associations, no meaning was put behind
0 and 1. It was much more austere than building a machine whose assembler
was english.

>
> When I think of minimalism, I tend to think of things
> > that are almost like a whack from a zen master- somethign for which we have
> > NO programmed response. Text is not elemental enough to invoke that almost
> > animal experience, of energy, or calm, or black, or division, that a
> > minimalist painting does so incredibly. I don't know if Barnett Newman
> > would have called himsef minimalist, but his Stations of the Cross are
> > possibly the best example I can think of. He takes something so incredibly
> > symbolized, with so much information attached to it, and strips all that
> > away.
>
> see bottom
> >
> >
> > least expenditure for an huge impact.
>
>   this criteria is as arbitrary as any btw, and is really just the
> result of trying to sift some significance from the label, "minimalism."
> ie. 'How can something be "minimal?"' Must be a leverage sort of thing.
>
OK, I confess. Worst definition ever. Go back to the whack from a Zen
master. That is more like what I mean, I just wish I could say it
concisely.

> Imagine
> > waking into a room with that painting in it, full size. It seizes the mind,
> > holds it where nothing but the energy of that central zip moves, in all of
> > space and time. It is steadfast, and fast, all at the same time. No symbol
> > could coherently hold all the meaning that painting does, despite the
> > symbol's inherent complexity.
>
> So are you saying that painting is the only valid medium for a
> minimalist enterprise?  I don't really believe you are but it seems we
> should agree at this point that a more artificial and contrived thing
> than oil paint on stretched canvas is hard to imagine.

Now where did I say that? I said this painting was an excellent EXAMPLE.
Anything can be minimalist - but you have to agree that Abraham passes well
outside your mental representation of an 'oil painting.' All art is
contrived; All art hopes to pass beyond it's own creation. Minimalism is
one way to attempt to do that. (And a rubber chicken is. More contrived, I
mean.)

-s
5TF!

Post a reply to this message

Dave Matthews wrote:
> Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
> 
>>Smini Mali?  What's that?  ;)
>>
>>--
>>Tim Cook
> 
> 
> IS MINIMAL

Ooooo, hidden gold


> 
> I'm a Lismin?
> 

You certainly are.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Smini Mali?  What's that?  ;)
> 

Hmmmmm, I got nothin'.  No idea at all.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
news:42d61989@news.povray.org...

> So are you saying that painting is the only valid medium for a
> minimalist enterprise?  I don't really believe you are but it seems we
> should agree at this point that a more artificial and contrived thing
> than oil paint on stretched canvas is hard to imagine.

Nice works lately Jim, they help to keep the stream of ideas flowing.

I'd second your opinion. Achitecture, sculpture or room installations seem a
great medium for this minimalism topic. I found some nice examples online
and it's hard to refrain from trying to simpy reproduce them in pov. Even
some cool landscaping that critics consider "minimalism".

Minimalism can be looked at in so many ways. Even maybe as creating a whole
scene out of a minimal set of SDL macros. Who knows! Take it easy


-r

Post a reply to this message

stm31415 wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
> 
>>We have a current IRTC topic.
>>
> 
> ooh. I haven't been povving recently, so I hadn't looked. I may have to get
> in on this one ;)
> 
Eeeee!  Well if I generate one convert it will all have been worthwhile ;)


> 
>>>but can anything involving text truely be minimal?
>>
>>You can certainly go to more reductive extremes.  But text can be a
>>vehicle for reductive strategies too I would think.
>>
> 
> I would agree, with the caveat that text can be reductive ONLY if you manage
> to force past the previous meaning of the words FIRST, then bring the
> viewer back to what it says. Dada writings often made text meaningless;
> you'd have to then return the meaning afterword - that would be a true
> trick, and an excellent piece of art.

These mock clever little design plays don't really reach such heights I 
admit.  But what if you leave the meaning of the word in but make it 
self-referential to the point of vacuity?


> 
> Niether is the problem. The problem is that the format of your work
> *itself*, that's the format, mind you, already has multiple, deep-seated
> associations attached to it in everyone's mind. Whether or not they are the
> same doesn't really matter; you are "thinking of a finger pointing at the
> moon," not the moon itself.
> 

ll

The question, 'is this "two" or does it mean "two?"', has an immutable 
fascination that the question, 'how did it come to mean "three" or 
"eleven" instead of "two?' will never have.

Anyway I take your point and recognized the potential for your complaint 
  and other ones too.  But I can always take the cheap way out and say I 
am only making posters. :P




> 
>>Anyway, the whole story of how computers came to produce meanings is
>>certainly an interesting one.  Haven't some argued that the breakthrough
>>came with the realization that symbolism would be necessary?
>>
> 
> Oh, absolutely. That's actually rather brilliant. You'll be doing bookstore
> coffeeshop poetry readings in no time ;). 

Now, now. ;)


>  The computer had not associations, no meaning was put behind
> 0 and 1. It was much more austere than building a machine whose assembler
> was english.
> 

But to increase its power something had to persist,...and the race got 
started.



> 
> OK, I confess. Worst definition ever. Go back to the whack from a Zen
> master. That is more like what I mean, I just wish I could say it
> concisely.
> 

Okay I'll give you your sword back, you're obviously a gentleman and 
it's not *such* a bad definition.


>>
>>So are you saying that painting is the only valid medium for a
>>minimalist enterprise?  I don't really believe you are but it seems we
>>should agree at this point that a more artificial and contrived thing
>>than oil paint on stretched canvas is hard to imagine.
> 
> 
> Now where did I say that? 

You seemed to be saying that the enterprise requires a medium with the 
special qualities needed to access pre-linguistic meaning.  I suppose 
where *I* get confused is that I do believe that painting, the bodily 
act of externalizing, does have those special qualities, but when 
reduced to its basic components, what seems to emerge more clearly is a 
set of conventions, not big meaning.

Post a reply to this message

Ross wrote:

> Minimalism can be looked at in so many ways. Even maybe as creating a whole
> scene out of a minimal set of SDL macros. Who knows! 

But you don't have to in order to address the topic.  It doesn't have to 
be a short code contest or necessarily involve any sort of "'this' in 
spite of reduced 'that'" factor.  Instead it's just a big license to 
relax I think.  See what we get for free.

> 
I thought you were pretty on target with your post in the "stills" 
group...that issues of pure design might finally come to the forefront 
over those of narrative depiction.  Though personally, if I do do an 
entry, it will probably have a large element of depiction to it.

Post a reply to this message