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