I wanted at least to try a *classic* minimalistic piece. Mesh2, carefully
painted and hung on the wall.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'Minimalism_02.jpg' (70 KB)

Preview of image 'Minimalism_02.jpg'

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I wanted at least to try a *classic* minimalistic piece. Mesh2, carefully
> painted and hung on the wall.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
> 
Nope, sorry, I think there is way too much there for classic or high 
minimalism.  Too much "illusion", too much "gesture".  Unless I am 
missing something.

Post a reply to this message

You're good, except the red flecks smack of the energy of abstract
expressionism, which is what minimalism retaliates againts. The cross its
nice, the strong texture is good, though the opposition of elements might
bring a little to much conflict into it. It certainly could be qualified
minimalist, and I like it, but I'm not sure it goes as far (or as short) as
the classic minimalist work. I like it quite a bit.

-s
5TF!

Post a reply to this message

You're good, except the red flecks smack of the energy of abstract
expressionism, which is what minimalism retaliates againts. The cross its
nice, the strong texture is good, though the opposition of elements might
bring a little to much conflict into it. It certainly could be qualified
minimalist, and I like it, but I'm not sure it goes as far (or as short) as
the classic minimalist work. I like it quite a bit.

-s
5TF!

Post a reply to this message

I really like the small shadow at the bottom, which suggests that the 
cross goes out from the box's surface, rather than in, as it looks like 
otherwise. It gives the image a subtle "Escher-esque" touch.

/ martin

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht
news:42e0fe33$1@news.povray.org...
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
> > I wanted at least to try a *classic* minimalistic piece. Mesh2,
carefully
> > painted and hung on the wall.
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> >
> >
> Nope, sorry, I think there is way too much there for classic or high
> minimalism.  Too much "illusion", too much "gesture".  Unless I am
> missing something.

As often, I wanted to be a little provocative ;-)
So my reference to *classic* can certainly be discussed. Well, perhaps I
should call this neo-minimalism....

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"stm31415" <sam### [at] cscom> schreef in bericht
news:web.42e1363f6eee544a7424c6800@news.povray.org...
> You're good, except the red flecks smack of the energy of abstract
> expressionism, which is what minimalism retaliates againts. The cross its
> nice, the strong texture is good, though the opposition of elements might
> bring a little to much conflict into it. It certainly could be qualified
> minimalist, and I like it, but I'm not sure it goes as far (or as short)
as
> the classic minimalist work. I like it quite a bit.
>

Thank you indeed! As I answered to Jim Charter, I like to provoque
sometimes, so the term classic is questionable. At the last moment I threw
in the red paint, as an afterthought, probably because I am biased to
abstract expressionism, and I found I needed a little more tension in the
whole thing. I prefer it thus than without, to tell the truth (and to hell
with minimalism!!  ;-))

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Martin Magnusson" <martin@-xx-blecket-xx-.org> schreef in bericht
news:42e15dae$1@news.povray.org...
> I really like the small shadow at the bottom, which suggests that the
> cross goes out from the box's surface, rather than in, as it looks like
> otherwise. It gives the image a subtle "Escher-esque" touch.
>
The cross is at the same time sunk into the surface, and slightly rising out
of it in the centre. It is not a flat painting. The almost exact front view
creates the illusion. Perhaps I should make a more sidewise view...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

 > "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht
 > news:42e0fe33$1@news.povray.org...
 >
 >> Thomas de Groot wrote:
 >>
 >>> I wanted at least to try a *classic* minimalistic piece. Mesh2,
 >
 >
 > carefully
 >
 >>> painted and hung on the wall.
 >>>
 >>> Thomas
 >>>
 >>>
 >>>
 >>
 >> Nope, sorry, I think there is way too much there for classic or high
 >> minimalism.  Too much "illusion", too much "gesture".  Unless I am
 >> missing something.
 >
 >
 >
 > As often, I wanted to be a little provocative ;-)
 > So my reference to *classic* can certainly be discussed. Well, perhaps I
 > should call this neo-minimalism....
 >
:)

You took that well
"neo-" is fine with me.

Now it's your turn.

Attached is my own attempt at a classical minimalist raytracing:

Features:
-orthographic camera so it is not a perspective space

-ambient or "pure" color only

-only the "transparency" of the color is varied

-minimalist theme of an interleaved sequence suggesting "stasis"

-use of unit squares unless good reason why not

-use of centered composition unless good reason why not

-use of off-white background because nobody's perfect

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'actual.0001.jpg' (14 KB)

Preview of image 'actual.0001.jpg'

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht
news:42e2682c@news.povray.org...

> You took that well
>
Why not? It is a good way to sharpen understanding and make progress.


> Now it's your turn.
>
Ok. Taking up the gauntlet...


> Attached is my own attempt at a classical minimalist raytracing:
>
> Features:
> -orthographic camera so it is not a perspective space
> -ambient or "pure" color only
> -only the "transparency" of the color is varied
> -minimalist theme of an interleaved sequence suggesting "stasis"
> -use of unit squares unless good reason why not
> -use of centered composition unless good reason why not
> -use of off-white background because nobody's perfect
>
>
You certainly went a long way in the right direction and while I do agree to
the minimalism concept expressed here (especially "stasis"), I miss the
little POV touch to finish it off. This is just a personal feeling, that we
should "see" this is not made by painting a canvas, or drawing with
Photoshop, but that a 3D environment is at the origin of the object. Not
necessarily by placing it in a 3D environment by the way, like I did and
which should remain secondary.
I find the list of features you provide stimulating. They could serve as
some kind of conceptual rules for a series of scenes, in the manner of the
Dogma film directors like Lars von Trier... and discover, like them, that
there are severe limits to the concept which make them abandon it gradually.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message