I tried this with no_image on the numbers and reflection 0 on the tile which 
just left the shadow, but the whole image looked a bit flat

     Should I stick with this one?

     ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'mina.jpg' (95 KB)

Preview of image 'mina.jpg'

I'm kinda hesitant about making such a sweeping criticism, but I've seen 
this in a lot of images posted here: Personally I don't think the use of 
text in an image can be considered minimalist, particularly not if we're 
talking about anything as complex as an entire 5 syllable word (or a 
digital encoding thereof).

My reasoning is pretty simple: minimalism is all about reduction to the 
simplest possible form, and the letters of the alphabet are elaborate 
and complex from a visual point of view compared to the base forms we 
find in ray-tracing: spheres, boxes, etc.

If you want to use text perhaps present it in a context where text is 
the most minimal form, e.g. on an old-school green on black computer screen.

Obviously you can disagree, but at the very least use a sans-serif font :)

Tek


St. wrote:
> I tried this with no_image on the numbers and reflection 0 on the tile 
> which just left the shadow, but the whole image looked a bit flat
> 
>     Should I stick with this one?
> 
>     ~Steve~
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Post a reply to this message

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message 
news:42e374b4@news.povray.org...
> I'm kinda hesitant about making such a sweeping criticism, but I've seen 
> this in a lot of images posted here: Personally I don't think the use of 
> text in an image can be considered minimalist, particularly not if we're 
> talking about anything as complex as an entire 5 syllable word (or a 
> digital encoding thereof).
>
> My reasoning is pretty simple: minimalism is all about reduction to the 
> simplest possible form, and the letters of the alphabet are elaborate and 
> complex from a visual point of view compared to the base forms we find in 
> ray-tracing: spheres, boxes, etc.
>
> If you want to use text perhaps present it in a context where text is the 
> most minimal form, e.g. on an old-school green on black computer screen.
>
> Obviously you can disagree, but at the very least use a sans-serif font :)

   No, I won't disagree Tek. I think you're dead right and all of what you 
say has sunken in. To be honest, I think it's a nice image but wasn't happy 
with it. I'll try something else.

     Thanks for the input.

   (Love your 'over, down, in' image btw!)  :)

    ~Steve~


>
> Tek

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:

> I'm kinda hesitant about making such a sweeping criticism, but I've
> seen this in a lot of images posted here: Personally I don't think the
> use of text in an image can be considered minimalist, particularly not
> if we're talking about anything as complex as an entire 5 syllable
> word (or a digital encoding thereof).
> 
> My reasoning is pretty simple: minimalism is all about reduction to
> the simplest possible form, and the letters of the alphabet are
> elaborate and complex from a visual point of view compared to the base
> forms we find in ray-tracing: spheres, boxes, etc.
> 
> If you want to use text perhaps present it in a context where text is
> the most minimal form, e.g. on an old-school green on black computer
> screen.

I don't know anything about the definition of minimalism but while
reading your statements, the following comes to my mind:
One could use minimalist objects such as spheres, boxes or pixels to
create something complex like text.

Post a reply to this message

Urs Holzer wrote:
> I don't know anything about the definition of minimalism but while
> reading your statements, the following comes to my mind:
> One could use minimalist objects such as spheres, boxes or pixels to
> create something complex like text.

This is true, but that would be almost the opposite of minimalism. One 
could say minimalism is the art of expressing something using the bare 
minimum of elements in the image. For example whilst you could make a 
tree using thousands of boxes, can you see a way to create a 
recognisable tree with just 3 boxes?

Though, of course, that example lacks the abstract aspect of minimalism, 
but that's well beyond my abilities to explain. e.g. Does the red circle 
make you feel happy? ;)

Tek

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:
> I'm kinda hesitant about making such a sweeping criticism, but I've seen 
> this in a lot of images posted here: Personally I don't think the use of 
> text in an image can be considered minimalist, 

Yes it can


particularly not if we're
> talking about anything as complex as an entire 5 syllable word (or a 
> digital encoding thereof).

Yes it can, I think Kawara's "Today Series" is "minimalist"


> 
> My reasoning is pretty simple: minimalism is all about reduction to the 
> simplest possible form, and the letters of the alphabet are elaborate 
> and complex from a visual point of view compared to the base forms we 
> find in ray-tracing: spheres, boxes, etc.

It is about reduction but there is not need to be limited to "form" as 
the focus.  That is the usual understand though.

> 
> If you want to use text perhaps present it in a context where text is 
> the most minimal form, e.g. on an old-school green on black computer 
> screen.

Probably a good ploy.  Text can be as banal as any other everyday 
artifact.  Empahsizing this would fall under the enterprise of 
"minimalist" I think


> 
> Obviously you can disagree, but at the very least use a sans-serif font :)
> 

LOL, but then maybe you might also chose a 'default' font.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> Tek wrote:
> > I'm kinda hesitant about making such a sweeping criticism, but I've seen
> > this in a lot of images posted here: Personally I don't think the use of
> > text in an image can be considered minimalist,
>
> Yes it can
>
>
> particularly not if we're
> > talking about anything as complex as an entire 5 syllable word (or a
> > digital encoding thereof).
>
> Yes it can, I think Kawara's "Today Series" is "minimalist"
>
>
> >


I would agree that text can be used, but the Today/Date paintings were using
words and symbols that have become meaningless to us through sheer
commonplace-ity.  Kawara, I think, is trying to draw attention BACK to the
meaning, te glory of the words (This is largely my own interpretation. I
don't know myuch about the artist, other than his postcards: "I am still
alive. I woke up at...") So while the first impression is indeed
minimalist, there is a depth to his work, something beyond "What you see is
what you see." Certainly, though, encoding letters into numbers and
printing the numbers at an angle in a color is stretching the definition of
minimalism, and while cool looking, I don't think it is very similar to
Kawara's works.

Complexity is not disallowed, but there is a great amount of concern with
meaning going on around here than the more "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" of
minimalism. (Yes, I know Magritte was surreal. I'll live)

Whew! I'm in ranting mode this morning. You're getting there, St. Keep it up
;)


-s
5TF!

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
> I tried this with no_image on the numbers and reflection 0 on the tile 
> which just left the shadow, but the whole image looked a bit flat
> 
>     Should I stick with this one?

The shadows-only approach has possibilities, the problem being that the 
viewer may not know or care how the shadows got to be there or even if 
they were shadows.  Very long shadows is kind of cliche but they might 
make their presence spookier.  Also if the shadows fell on an uneven 
surface, and in such a way that we know they must be shadows, but what 
is casting them?

What I like about the scene is your use of scale and camera to produce a 
"monumental" effect together with a general starkness and harsh color. 
The presence of the mysterious number sequence presents further 
possibilities along these scifi lines but I think its presence must be 
revealed to the viewer in a more compelling way.  Letters standing 
inexplicably on a plain, like Stonehenge, is one way to go, but are 
there other possibilities?

I don't know if you followed one link that I posted here to a Robert 
Smithson essay.  The essay demonstrates the very poetic way that he both 
viewed and participated in the art of the "minimalist" sculptors. He was 
something of a latecomer and like everyone is projecting his interests 
into the thing. But in general I think you can say that he was sensitive 
to the type of thinking that these artists were involving themselves 
with.  Your piece reminds me of the scene from the quote he uses at the 
top of the essay.  I considered reproducing this scene myself for my 
current irtc entry.  In all of the candidate ideas that you have shared 
so far, you show your usual cinematic sense for a scene.  I think that 
if you combine that with a subset of qualities that characterized 
minimalist art such as muted earth colors or grays and a preference for 
hard edge geometries, and then apply that to themes such as entropy, 
time, alienation, and the like, you entry would be perfectly valid.

About the text.  Historically, about the same time "minimalism" 
predominated, "conceptual" art also became hugely popular, and the two 
fed each other. Further, both marched under a larger flag labelled 
"deconstructionist".  This flag encompassed many arts and was 
particularily well liked among theorists and other verbal types of 
people. It was also considered intellectually ambitious. One of their 
great themes was the interplay of "sign" and "symbol" and how "meaning" 
was communicated.   These theorists went to excrutiating lengths to 
analyze such things, and naturally, "text" was a big focus.  So you see, 
among such purists, if you introduce text into your picture you are 
opening a big can of worms.  But if you are someone making a picture to 
tell a story or evoke a mood like movie-makers do, what the hell?  What 
some may find objectionable about your present scene, is a feeling that 
you may be using the presence of text to infuse an otherwise 
straightforward landscape with unwarranted significance, ambition, and 
intellectual irony.  I say tell your story.

Post a reply to this message

stm31415 wrote:


> alive. I woke up at...") So while the first impression is indeed
> minimalist, there is a depth to his work, something beyond "What you see is
> what you see." 

It may be a critique of minimalism, but not how I take it.  I think they 
play very much on a taste for the banal, the minimal, the immediate, 
then discover variety within serialization.  It is very much "cross 
over" work spanning painting, performance, concept, installation even. 
I would certainly categorize it as "conceptual" art before I categorized 
it as "minimalist" painting.  But I think it is painting that is very 
close to Robert Ryman, say.  I think it derives very much from 
minimalism and its time.



Certainly, though, encoding letters into numbers and
> printing the numbers at an angle in a color is stretching the definition of
> minimalism, and while cool looking, I don't think it is very similar to
> Kawara's works.

No, but I was responding in the general case.  The assertion was 
encompassing so I need just one example to disprove it don't I?


> 
> Complexity is not disallowed, 

I would hope not, because it also becomes difficult to define. Sol 
Lewitt's work comes to mind. ie. simple building block, complex result.


but there is a great amount of concern with
> meaning going on around here than the more "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" of
> minimalism. (Yes, I know Magritte was surreal. I'll live)

The problem is that to satisfy the irtc topic you need only address the 
word "minimalism" in some way.  Including putting it in your picture.

Post a reply to this message

Very fine analysis, Jim.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message