 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Or rather, as I haven't done anything like minimalism, (at least I don't
think so with my images), would this be a minimalist image?
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'min1.jpg' (129 KB)
Preview of image 'min1.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Or rather, as I haven't done anything like minimalism, (at least I don't
> think so with my images), would this be a minimalist image?
>
> ~Steve~
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
I vote yes. If for no other reason than that it recalls certain
elements from the 1960's-70's art movement by that name. Ideas about
the immutability of static grids, and primary materials.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Or rather, as I haven't done anything like minimalism, (at least I don't
> think so with my images), would this be a minimalist image?
>
> ~Steve~
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Minimal Art emerged as a movement in the 1950s and continued through the
Sixties and Seventies. It is a term used to describe paintings and
sculpture that thrive on simplicity in both content and form, and seek
to remove any sign of personal expressivity. The aim of Minimalism is to
allow the viewer to experience the work more intensely without the
distractions of composition, theme and so on.
There are examples of the Minimalist theory being exercised as early as
the 18th century when Goethe constructed an Altar of Good Fortune made
simply of a stone sphere and cube. But the 20th century sees the
movement come into its own. From the 1920s artists such as Malevich and
Duchamp produced works in the Minimalist vein but the movement is known
chiefly by its American exponents such as Dan Flavin, Carl Andre,
Ellsworth Kelly and Donald Judd who reacted against Abstract
Expressionism in their stark canvases, sculptures and installations.
Minimal Art is related to a number of other movements such as Conceptual
Art in the way the finished work exists merely to convey a theory, Pop
Art in their shared fascination with the impersonal and Land Art in the
construction of simple shapes. Minimal Art proved highly successful and
has been enormously influential on the development of art in the 20th
century.
http://www.artmovements.co.uk/minimalism.htm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dot com> wrote:
> Or rather, as I haven't done anything like minimalism, (at least I don't
> think so with my images), would this be a minimalist image?
>
> ~Steve~
I wouldn't consider your image to be minimalist. The best definition I can
find describes the movement as reducing art to the absolute minimum number
of colors, shapes, textures, etc. that will get the idea across. A black
cross on a white background would be a good example. An interesting
concept for an artist using a ray tracer. If anything, art done with all
the power of POV-Ray could be considered "Maximalist!"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeff Houck wrote:
> St. wrote:
>
>> Or rather, as I haven't done anything like minimalism, (at least I
>> don't think so with my images), would this be a minimalist image?
>>
>> ~Steve~
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> Minimal Art emerged as a movement in the 1950s and continued through the
> Sixties and Seventies. It is a term used to describe paintings and
> sculpture that thrive on simplicity in both content and form, and seek
> to remove any sign of personal expressivity. The aim of Minimalism is to
> allow the viewer to experience the work more intensely without the
> distractions of composition, theme and so on.
>
> There are examples of the Minimalist theory being exercised as early as
> the 18th century when Goethe constructed an Altar of Good Fortune made
> simply of a stone sphere and cube. But the 20th century sees the
> movement come into its own. From the 1920s artists such as Malevich and
> Duchamp produced works in the Minimalist vein but the movement is known
> chiefly by its American exponents such as Dan Flavin, Carl Andre,
> Ellsworth Kelly and Donald Judd who reacted against Abstract
> Expressionism in their stark canvases, sculptures and installations.
>
> Minimal Art is related to a number of other movements such as Conceptual
> Art in the way the finished work exists merely to convey a theory, Pop
> Art in their shared fascination with the impersonal and Land Art in the
> construction of simple shapes. Minimal Art proved highly successful and
> has been enormously influential on the development of art in the 20th
> century.
>
> http://www.artmovements.co.uk/minimalism.htm
In my recollection, the minimalist was pretty much the label for a small
group of sculptors. At the time, everyone thought that painting, which
in a reductionist era was pretty much forced to accept "color" as its
domain, had played itself out. I don't remember that painters that were
doing monochrone paintings or even "shaped canvases" were calling
themselves minimalists. They only did that in the seventies, when that
label became the only way to sell a work of art. As I remember they
were using terms like post-expressive abstraction, geometric
abstraction, field painting, and so on. As I recall, while many
painters of the day might be clustered under the term in retrospect,
Agnes Martin was really the only painter acknowledged as such at the time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lonnie wrote:
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
>>Or rather, as I haven't done anything like minimalism, (at least I don't
>>think so with my images), would this be a minimalist image?
>>
>> ~Steve~
>
>
> I wouldn't consider your image to be minimalist. The best definition I can
> find describes the movement as reducing art to the absolute minimum number
> of colors, shapes, textures, etc. that will get the idea across.
And what idea was that?
A black
> cross on a white background would be a good example. An interesting
> concept for an artist using a ray tracer. If anything, art done with all
> the power of POV-Ray could be considered "Maximalist!"
>
>
>
As I recall, the minimalist scultors were as likely to be into scifi, as
mathematics, as Zen.
I think it is misleading to dissect the etymology of the label to try
and explain the art movement. As an approach to the IRTC contest theme
though...?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:18:36 +0100, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>would this be a minimalist image?
It is a very nice image certainly. Ach nice does not do it justice :-)
I think it is minimalist in the way architecture and house design is
described as minimalist. It is not showing the "concept of the image"
with the smallest amount of information so in another sense it is not
minimalist.
My entry for "Psued's Corner" :-)
Take your pick.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> I don't remember that painters that were
> doing monochrone paintings or even "shaped canvases" were calling
> themselves minimalists.
Hi Jim,
Minimalism, the term was used for the *first time* by the philosopher
Richard Wollheim in Arts Magazine (1965) when he talked about some aspect
of Marcel Duchamp's work. After that, someones (art critics) re-used this
word to describe the artwork of Ad Reinhardt ('ultimate paintings', some
almost monochromes ), Frank Stella, Donald Judd, Carl Andre, Dan Flavin,
Sol Lewitt, Robert Morris, Dan Graham... But I believe the artists
themselves rejected this term because they thought it was too reducing, in
a formal aspect I mean.
Rene
http://rene.bui.free.fr - online portfolio
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rene Bui wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
>
>>I don't remember that painters that were
>>doing monochrone paintings or even "shaped canvases" were calling
>>themselves minimalists.
>
>
> Hi Jim,
> Minimalism, the term was used for the *first time* by the philosopher
> Richard Wollheim in Arts Magazine (1965) when he talked about some aspect
> of Marcel Duchamp's work. After that, someones (art critics) re-used this
> word to describe the artwork of Ad Reinhardt ('ultimate paintings', some
> almost monochromes ), Frank Stella, Donald Judd, Carl Andre, Dan Flavin,
> Sol Lewitt, Robert Morris, Dan Graham... But I believe the artists
> themselves rejected this term because they thought it was too reducing, in
> a formal aspect I mean.
>
>
> Rene
> http://rene.bui.free.fr - online portfolio
>
>
Thanks for that. And thankyou for understanding that
while "minimalist" can be recognized in in any number of modernist
artists throughout the last century and earlier, and may even have been
used regarding them, I am talking about the huge, famous, international
art movement by that name that took place in the 60's and 70's.
Yes I admit that I was pretty hazy on F Stella, and whether and how
early the term was applied to his work. Mostly what I remember was all
the hand-wringing around the idea that once you turned a painting into a
shaped canvas, then all you really had was a type of sculpture. So,
"painting" was "dead." I also remember that painters, even
Stella/Reinhardt, were still viewed in the context of modernist ->
abstract expressionist -> formalist ( and even pop ) traditions of
*painting* while the sculptures of Judd, Andre, Serra etc. seemed a new
and exciting movement.
And I agree, I think the scultors themselves saw their work differently
from how it came to be marketed. And I do seem to recall that they
would only acknowledge Agnes. But that might be only hearsay.
Anyway, most of the fuss was over by the time I got to NY in the late
seventies. All I saw was the perpetual darkness of the movement's
fallout.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Or rather, as I haven't done anything like minimalism, (at least I don't
> think so with my images), would this be a minimalist image?
>
> ~Steve~
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Late to the party. I searched this out after seeing your reference to it
in i.stills.
I vote no. This is not Minimalist. How can an image be Minimalist when
the "Maximalist" version of the idea would be so nearly identical?
Rusty round things on beams in a room. It's all here. Sure, you could
add a few light bulbs, birds, whatever. It would still be "rusty round
things on beams in a room". The "underneath" is not shown.
FWIW, it is a nice looking image.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
