Hi all,

I am in doubt.
This scene is built up with two spheres and two cubes (and two lights), so
it might be called minimalistic. But then every painting made with one brush
could be called minimalistic. I know I should not compare POV scenes with
traditional painting, though.
The central concept is fairly minimal, but it breaks-down gradually into the
background (down the entropy slope), and what the eyes see is more something
abstract expressionistic I believe.
Still, my little toe tells me that ... blah blah blah....

Ok. Your verdict, folks.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'Infinity Box_06.jpg' (192 KB)

Preview of image 'Infinity Box_06.jpg'

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I am in doubt.
> This scene is built up with two spheres and two cubes (and two lights), so
> it might be called minimalistic. But then every painting made with one brush
> could be called minimalistic. 

Great line!  Of course there *are* those Robert Ryman paintings based on 
different brush sizes.

I know I should not compare POV scenes with
> traditional painting, though.

Why not?

> The central concept is fairly minimal, but it breaks-down gradually into the
> background (down the entropy slope), and what the eyes see is more something
> abstract expressionistic I believe.
> Still, my little toe tells me that ... blah blah blah....
> 

Well there is minimalist taste,...
then there was the minimalists themes
http://www.robertsmithson.com/essays/entropy_and.htm

Post a reply to this message

My verdict is... that's really cool.

Even the minimalists hated being pigeonholed as such, and I suppose whether
a particular work fits in that category is a matter of opinion.  In my
relative ignorance of art history, I guess the word "minimalism" makes me
think of pure abstraction, lack of emotional content, and a simplicity of
form and texture.

Based on that last item, my first reaction is that your image isn't really
minimalist, but I'm sure others will disagree.  I suppose one of the big
challenges with this topic is trying to fit yourself into a poorly defined
category.


  -Ed

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht
news:42d7c706$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> > I am in doubt.
> > This scene is built up with two spheres and two cubes (and two lights),
so
> > it might be called minimalistic. But then every painting made with one
brush
> > could be called minimalistic.
>
> Great line!  Of course there *are* those Robert Ryman paintings based on
> different brush sizes.

Sure! I wanted to create the mood by a first *principle* statement :-)

>
> I know I should not compare POV scenes with
> > traditional painting, though.
>
> Why not?

Ah! Maybe my second statement. In the essence, there is no difference, as
only the end result counts. However, I feel that a *new* medium needs a
*new* development. Look at photography. In the early days, to show that it
was also an artistic medium in its own right, it was used for scenes
reproducing paintings. Later it evolved into its own artistic domain.
I feel that the same might be true for POV and related work. Don't
understand me wrong, I think that taking up the thread at the exact spot
where painting stopped, is a valid concept. But isn't it the star of a new
direction? Difficult to say, I am afraid... <sigh>

>
> > The central concept is fairly minimal, but it breaks-down gradually into
the
> > background (down the entropy slope), and what the eyes see is more
something
> > abstract expressionistic I believe.
> > Still, my little toe tells me that ... blah blah blah....
> >
>
> Well there is minimalist taste,...
> then there was the minimalists themes
> http://www.robertsmithson.com/essays/entropy_and.htm

I shall have to study this more. Thanks for the link. Much to do!!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Ed Jackson" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht
news:web.42d7c60bb42940c4437d093a0@news.povray.org...
>
> My verdict is... that's really cool.

Thank you indeed!
>
> Even the minimalists hated being pigeonholed as such, and I suppose
whether
> a particular work fits in that category is a matter of opinion.  In my
> relative ignorance of art history, I guess the word "minimalism" makes me
> think of pure abstraction, lack of emotional content, and a simplicity of
> form and texture.

I agree. In the end, I think that the categorizing matters much less than
the end product. After all, minimalist (and other) painters made their work
not because they where minimalists but because they had something to say the
way they did. So the danger here. is to put the cart in front of the horses.
>
> Based on that last item, my first reaction is that your image isn't really
> minimalist, but I'm sure others will disagree.  I suppose one of the big
> challenges with this topic is trying to fit yourself into a poorly defined
> category.

And that last is a challenge that makes this round interesting.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Hey Thomas, I'm the last person to speak of art-- and yet do so anyway-- so 
I'm not sure what this would be classed as in the art world, but to my eyes 
it says technical.

Oh... I just thought of what it reminds me of. Something structural instead 
of technical, like a view of a crystalline matrix where we can see more than 
the usual electron microscope or x-ray diffraction appearance. Like delving 
far into such a microcosmic realm in person, the atoms meshed with 
boundaries the same as the macroscopic object this is inside of.

Well, I tried to give it *my* interpretation.  : )

Although, if I saw this as a painting on display in a room with a sign 
saying "minimalist art" I probably wouldn't think twice about it belonging 
there.

Bob Hughes

Post a reply to this message

"Bob Hughes" <bob### [at] charternet> schreef in bericht
news:42d8ef9d$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Oh... I just thought of what it reminds me of. Something structural
instead
> of technical, like a view of a crystalline matrix where we can see more
than
> the usual electron microscope or x-ray diffraction appearance. Like
delving
> far into such a microcosmic realm in person, the atoms meshed with
> boundaries the same as the macroscopic object this is inside of.

Yes, that is also my impression of the thing. It is rather structural, but
in a kind of flux, really. That is why I talked about entropy. It could be a
*poetic* representation of the universe.


> Well, I tried to give it *my* interpretation.  : )

Thanks indeed, Bob! Much appreciated.

>
> Although, if I saw this as a painting on display in a room with a sign
> saying "minimalist art" I probably wouldn't think twice about it belonging
> there.
>
Ah, yes... That is the difficulty with the topic, or rather the pitfall we
have to avoid: turning things around and get lost.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message