 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> I would hope not, because it also becomes difficult to define. Sol
> Lewitt's work comes to mind. ie. simple building block, complex result.
>
You've introduced me to a new artist, there.
>
> 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.
I think the concentration on the word itself is being overdone, here,
though. When the theme was contrast, did anyone make an image based around
the physical aspect of the english word 'contrast'? And if they had, what
would you have thought of it? The image is supposed to address the THEME
'minimalism', something which this image does, but it does even without the
inclusion of text. I am happy, even overjoyed (at this point) to see
anything that does not apply the artistic meaning of the word, but I do
want to see the meaning of the word in some sense, not just the word itself
('DK' for 'decay' comes to mind. It made me laugh out loud when I saw it,
but it was not meant as a serious entry, and many criticized it harshly for
not really interpreting the theme.) I sat up in my seat the other day when
someone mentioned 'minimalist comedy' (in context of Bob Newhart) and wish
I could find a way to use that. But to write minimalism in the image
somehow is not enough fro me to say it DOES address the topic. It mentions
the topic. If I didn't speak english, if I was, say, a native esperantist,
an image that simply said 'minimalism' would not apply to the topic at all.
It's an international competition, and making your entry specifically
english in nature is fine, but risky, if you ask me. THe guy who submitted
a picture of 'minimalism' in written in sumerian (who would get kudos from
me for THAT translation ;)) might not be happy.
Shoot! I did it again. It might be best for me to take a break for a few
days ;) How bout this: minimalim in posting technique. 1 Haiku posts for
the rest of the week from me.
-s
5TF!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stm31415 wrote:
>
> Shoot! I did it again. It might be best for me to take a break for a few
> days ;) How bout this: minimalim in posting technique. 1 Haiku posts for
> the rest of the week from me.
>
No, you are right. My comment was glib. But we agree on the larger
point, that producing an actual, arguably minimalist, work is not
strictly necessary.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stm31415 wrote:
> but I do
> want to see the meaning of the word in some sense, not just the word itself
> ('DK' for 'decay' comes to mind. It made me laugh out loud when I saw it,
Being a pun, it made me groan out loud...
And speaking of puns, I thought the "Out of Place" entry (in the Jan-Feb
'05 IRTC competition) by Tom Melly was a much more clever pun than the
"DK". I was rather surprised that in the comments, so few seemed to get
this pun. Although I have to confess that it took me a bit of thought
to 'get it' myself.
However, this is rather OT, so I'll shut up now.
-=- Larry -=-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:11:46 -0700, Larry Hudson <org### [at] yahoo com>
wrote:
>
>And speaking of puns, I thought the "Out of Place" entry (in the Jan-Feb
>'05 IRTC competition) by Tom Melly was a much more clever pun than the
>"DK". I was rather surprised that in the comments, so few seemed to get
>this pun. Although I have to confess that it took me a bit of thought
>to 'get it' myself.
I thought so too.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thank you for making me go back and stare at this image until I finally
got it (took me at least a couple minutes). Honestly, when I first saw
this image I thought those were boxes of kitty litter, one with clumped
cat excrement that someone was trying to pawn off as oysters. Yes, you
can safely assume that I was more than baffled.
Skip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Skip Talbot wrote:
> Thank you for making me go back and stare at this image until I finally
> got it (took me at least a couple minutes).
Me, too.
> Honestly, when I first saw
> this image I thought those were boxes of kitty litter, one with clumped
> cat excrement that someone was trying to pawn off as oysters. Yes, you
> can safely assume that I was more than baffled.
I agree that as an image, it could have used more work. (Even Tom Melly
himself said so in his image description.) But as a pun, when you
finally see it, it's great.
If anyone still hasn't seen the point, I don't want to explain it --
there's no fun in that. :-) I'll just say: look at the label, look
at the box, think about the topic. 'Nuff said (I hope). ;-)
Just in case someone hasn't seen it: IRTC Jan-Feb '05, topic: Out of
Place. http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2005-02-28/tm_oop.jpg
-=- Larry -=-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Hudson wrote:
> stm31415 wrote:
>
>> but I do
>> want to see the meaning of the word in some sense, not just the word
>> itself
>> ('DK' for 'decay' comes to mind. It made me laugh out loud when I saw it,
>
>
> Being a pun, it made me groan out loud...
>
> And speaking of puns, I thought the "Out of Place" entry (in the Jan-Feb
> '05 IRTC competition) by Tom Melly was a much more clever pun than the
> "DK". I was rather surprised that in the comments, so few seemed to get
> this pun. Although I have to confess that it took me a bit of thought
> to 'get it' myself.
>
> However, this is rather OT, so I'll shut up now.
>
> -=- Larry -=-
Aggh.. for the past few days I've been agonising over "what pun?" This
image has no pun. What are they talking about, its just a sequence of
numbers. So I looked, nothing in the numbers. So I stared: Nothing in
the shadows. I don't get it. I just don't get it.
Then I reread the whole thing about pun images. and... wham, I looked at
the numbers again. Clever.
--
~Mike
Things! Billions of them!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Aggh.. for the past few days I've been agonising over "what pun?" This
> image has no pun. What are they talking about, its just a sequence of
> numbers. ...
When I posted my initial message, I was just responding to a side
comment that had nothing to do with this thread or this image, I even
said it was off-topic. Sorry 'bout that.
Let's either change the subject and start a new thread, or let's drop
it. (I didn't expect this side issue to continue this long anyway.) :-)
-=- Larry -=-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
