|
 |
"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msn com> wrote in message
news:42d61989@news.povray.org...
> So are you saying that painting is the only valid medium for a
> minimalist enterprise? I don't really believe you are but it seems we
> should agree at this point that a more artificial and contrived thing
> than oil paint on stretched canvas is hard to imagine.
Nice works lately Jim, they help to keep the stream of ideas flowing.
I'd second your opinion. Achitecture, sculpture or room installations seem a
great medium for this minimalism topic. I found some nice examples online
and it's hard to refrain from trying to simpy reproduce them in pov. Even
some cool landscaping that critics consider "minimalism".
Minimalism can be looked at in so many ways. Even maybe as creating a whole
scene out of a minimal set of SDL macros. Who knows! Take it easy
-r
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
stm31415 wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
>
>
>>We have a current IRTC topic.
>>
>
> ooh. I haven't been povving recently, so I hadn't looked. I may have to get
> in on this one ;)
>
Eeeee! Well if I generate one convert it will all have been worthwhile ;)
>
>>>but can anything involving text truely be minimal?
>>
>>You can certainly go to more reductive extremes. But text can be a
>>vehicle for reductive strategies too I would think.
>>
>
> I would agree, with the caveat that text can be reductive ONLY if you manage
> to force past the previous meaning of the words FIRST, then bring the
> viewer back to what it says. Dada writings often made text meaningless;
> you'd have to then return the meaning afterword - that would be a true
> trick, and an excellent piece of art.
These mock clever little design plays don't really reach such heights I
admit. But what if you leave the meaning of the word in but make it
self-referential to the point of vacuity?
>
> Niether is the problem. The problem is that the format of your work
> *itself*, that's the format, mind you, already has multiple, deep-seated
> associations attached to it in everyone's mind. Whether or not they are the
> same doesn't really matter; you are "thinking of a finger pointing at the
> moon," not the moon itself.
>
ll
The question, 'is this "two" or does it mean "two?"', has an immutable
fascination that the question, 'how did it come to mean "three" or
"eleven" instead of "two?' will never have.
Anyway I take your point and recognized the potential for your complaint
and other ones too. But I can always take the cheap way out and say I
am only making posters. :P
>
>>Anyway, the whole story of how computers came to produce meanings is
>>certainly an interesting one. Haven't some argued that the breakthrough
>>came with the realization that symbolism would be necessary?
>>
>
> Oh, absolutely. That's actually rather brilliant. You'll be doing bookstore
> coffeeshop poetry readings in no time ;).
Now, now. ;)
> The computer had not associations, no meaning was put behind
> 0 and 1. It was much more austere than building a machine whose assembler
> was english.
>
But to increase its power something had to persist,...and the race got
started.
>
> OK, I confess. Worst definition ever. Go back to the whack from a Zen
> master. That is more like what I mean, I just wish I could say it
> concisely.
>
Okay I'll give you your sword back, you're obviously a gentleman and
it's not *such* a bad definition.
>>
>>So are you saying that painting is the only valid medium for a
>>minimalist enterprise? I don't really believe you are but it seems we
>>should agree at this point that a more artificial and contrived thing
>>than oil paint on stretched canvas is hard to imagine.
>
>
> Now where did I say that?
You seemed to be saying that the enterprise requires a medium with the
special qualities needed to access pre-linguistic meaning. I suppose
where *I* get confused is that I do believe that painting, the bodily
act of externalizing, does have those special qualities, but when
reduced to its basic components, what seems to emerge more clearly is a
set of conventions, not big meaning.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
Ross wrote:
> Minimalism can be looked at in so many ways. Even maybe as creating a whole
> scene out of a minimal set of SDL macros. Who knows!
But you don't have to in order to address the topic. It doesn't have to
be a short code contest or necessarily involve any sort of "'this' in
spite of reduced 'that'" factor. Instead it's just a big license to
relax I think. See what we get for free.
>
I thought you were pretty on target with your post in the "stills"
group...that issues of pure design might finally come to the forefront
over those of narrative depiction. Though personally, if I do do an
entry, it will probably have a large element of depiction to it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
