This is minimalism
Mitchell
Registered Users Posts: 3,503 Major grins
I was wondering how many of us really know what the minimalist style is all about. I know ginger has been doing some research for her inspiration. I went looking today for some minimalist inspiration and found some examples (see below). Unfortunately, many of our present entries do not really reflect the minimalist style.
Let's embrace this challenge and try to come up with some creative minimalist photos that really reflect the theme!
Let's embrace this challenge and try to come up with some creative minimalist photos that really reflect the theme!
0
Comments
Bear with me, I hope that writing this all down will help me clarify my thoughts.
I was laying awake (at 2 am) trying to figure how minimalism fits into photography. It is my contention that minimalists would argue that photography is too representational, so where does that leave us? Do we create minimalist compositions and then photograph them? Or do we photograph using the reductive principles of Minimalism? I would argue that most of the things that make a photograph really interesting are somewhat at odds with minimalism. How do you use color, composition, contrast, scale, DOF, foreground/background (I'm sure I've forgotten at least two more things) minimally? Do you try to use all of those things very subtly and simply, or do you just pick one or two of the prinicples and make those the primary focus? Do you tell a story, or is that representational? Some of the best minimalist art I've seen had the advantage of human scale, that is, it was only a red square, but it was a 20 foot red square. We are stuck looking at a photograph of a 20 foot red square, which does not look that impressive unless you put a person standing next to it and then, it's not minimalism any more.
Ow, my head hurts.
ps. Ginger's links were great!
hoping this message finds you less ambivalent than me -Ian
http://www.phototalk.net/photos/showgallery.php/cat/4225
amc.smugmug.com
"The artists of minimalism were almost wholly concerned with sculpture because no matter how abstract, cold and void of depth, painting always carried a degree of illusionism, an idea that the minimalists rejected in their utmost. They were interested in extreme formal vigour and simplicity of geometric volume, therefore sculpture was the ideal way of dealing with these principles. Thus, Minimalist works are defined by their visible material qualities and absolutely nothing else. There are no matephysical innuendos, no religious connotations, no symbolic references, no ironic pokes at society, no representations of objects we are familiar with, nothing! For the minimalist artist, their sculptural works are nothing but a certain number of volumes in space, making the space dynamic."
taken from http://guilds.outpost10f.com/~artists/resources/minimalism.html
So....where does this leave us? minimalism does deal with simplicity in general, yes, I wholeheartedly agree. But what is simple? Does that mean one major line? no, not necessarily. does that mean one dominant color or shade of gray? I don't think so. Primarily because some pieces of art that are considered minimalist are impressive to the human eye because of scale (say a 20 ft. red square on a white wall). Take a picture of it and you've already broken a main rule of minimalism and turned it into a representation have you not?
So far, minimalism is underrepresented in photography, due to its very nature, when compared to sculpture or painting. So I ask myself, do I fit minimalism within the parameters of photography or vice versa? That's quite a daunting question in my mind and fitting the minimalist approach within the parameters of photography seems just as daunting.
I found this definition of minimalism that I'd like to share:
"The terms Minimalism and Minimal art are widely used to describe styles based on a minimal, highly controlled use of art elements. However, more specifically, Minimal art and Minimalism also refers to a style of art that developed in the US in the 1960s. It reflected a belief, shared by many artists and critics, that modern art had to rid itself of all forms of illusionism and emotionalism.
"The intention was to create a 'pure art' that existed for its own sake, not to remind the viewer of anything else (such as people, places and feelings). The elements in Minimal art are reduced to a minimum to focus attention on the pure qualities of the materials and elements in the painting or sculpture. Shapes and forms are characteristically geometric and precisely defined. Colour is flat and limited. Some examples of Minimal art feature single elements, such as a black square. Others feature a repetition of single elements, often in a grid format, to create a mathematically predictable pattern that emphasises the importance of formal structure over personal expression.
"The Minimal artist's rejection of personal expression led them to leave little or no evidence of the artist's presence or personality in the form of personal marks, such as brushstrokes. Many artists worked with industrial materials and/or had their designs fabricated by industry."
And the underlined sentence says it all and will prove to be the most difficult for myself personally. The very act of how I've chosen to frame a subject, the lighting used, everything, is a reflection of my thought and approach to the subject, as defined by the photograph. More simply put, elements that make a photograph interesting to the majority of us are to be avoided if you stick to the strictest of definitions. :cry
wow, this is proving to be more difficult than I thought!!
Thanks Lucky Hack and Digital Fairie for the great references. Thanks amc for the link. I'm thinking on all this.
But, seems to me, that true minimalism is for the artist to create, not for the photographer. All we can do is look for settings or vignettes that look like something a minimalist artist might have created. These "pictures" probably will not be the best examples of photography. They will look "flat" rather than have great depth. They may have flat light rather than the light that emphasizes form. We need to throw away the rule book for photography in order to emulate the style of the minimalist artist. I'm not sure I can do this. I was just getting used to these rules.:cry
Susan Appel Photography My Blog
they don't call it a "challenge" for nothing, right?!? I'm too emotional to see if I can get a picture for this, lol
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
(mine from earlier today)
I knew the stuff I got the night before was the type of stuff I enjoy taking, but that it could not even begin to fit a broad definition of minimalism, hence the blank wall idea, if nothing else I was going extremely minimal. Pretty In Pink is all pink, but I did not expect the shadow, that will probably be my entry.
When I got there, to Rainbow Row, and I will show you all a photo of where I was, maybe. I had on my 17-40 mm glass lens. I parked illegally, got out of the car and looked for two connecting houses of different colors that did not have a drain pipe between them. I used the rule of thirds in many of the photographs. Sometimes I would vary it.
I used forms that interested me, like the doorbell. Some worked better than others.
Music was one of the first photographs. I was in a warehouse district, I took a photo of a couple of doors, then I walked around the side of the building and looked through my lens until I saw an interesting, to me, pattern.
Once you start, it gets easier.......really. Just think of the rules of photography and start out that way. I do not do still lifes, but I have seen good minimalist photographs that were still lifes. I believe the blue one that I mentioned was like Snappy's, I think that was a piece of paper.
I did it my way, using my environment, places I already knew might be possible for me, but still lifes are good, too. Just form, following the rules of photography, usually.
ginger
It is not photojournalism, I am interested in this now, because this is like going to school and learning a whole new style of art. I bet none of us ever forget minimalism.
ginger
I just took pieces of them.
g
This challenge has really brought back memories for me!!
mitch
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
most definitely not! I really like the pink one!
we are looking too hard? And moving too fast?
Reading through some of the threads it feels like a Christmas sale at Wal Mart almost. Sort of a grinding of teeth to it. Now we are taking it apart and putting it under a microscope.
Relax, breathe deep, sit awhile, ponder it-don't analyze it.
'minimalism'
swish it around over your pallette and swallow....
'minimalism'
I will not make this an excercise in creating a text-book definition of 'minimalism'. I will not *study* what others have done and emulate it. I may come to a similar place, but I want to get there on my own. I really don't even want to look for examples of what others have done with this category before me.
Do we really need a class in 'minimalism'? Are we building a house? Is there a blueprint? More importantly, should there be a blueprint?
Think about it....
minimum
minimal
'ism'
Minimal-street definition-the least necessary
Why let a book define what that looks like to your artists eye? Express yourselves with the "least necessary" elements to make your point-or not make your point. All you have to loose is a challenge! I can understand asking for technical help, but by pre-submitting your work and *adjusting* it according to community input or taste, how does it even remain *your work*? What we have then is a picture taken by Sally, Dick, and Jane. If you need help on how to get exposure that's one thing, but why let someone tell you how to crop your shot? Crop it how you want it-submit it and let the chips fall where they may. You will get the communities input when the votes are counted. Then it's time to ask-"what could I have done differently?" Be comfortable where you are, and confident that you will do your best-for you.
Methinks, we try so hard to fit into the box that we are missing the sweet fragrance of creativity. There are two weeks for us to 'work' on this, I plan on enjoying the trip.
Let us show each other what WE think best represents minimalism.
Now-go forth and CREATE.
Take care all.....
that may just 'fit' this category.
I'm not sure of the exact quote, so I'll have to paraphrase from memory but,
Someone was admiring a sculpture of a horse done by Michelangelo. They turned and asked him how he could make something so magnificient out of a piece of stone.
He replied-"Simple, I just remove everything that doesn't look like a horse."
I know we're not making a 'horse' but hopefully it conveys 'the drift'.
Remove everything that is 'unnecessary' and strip it down to it's barest form.
I am now so confused with different ideas and outlooks.
I have become so thouroughly immobilized and stuck in the fog in my head.
It prevents me from moving forward or having an idea.
I don't know what to do next.......I'm just.......well......there.....uh stuck.
I think I have arrived at a minimalist state of mind!
My cunumdrum is what to do now, anything I do shatters the minimalist moment i have created for myself.
I think most people here are trying to get out of the box.
Hmmm.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
It's too cold to go outside!!! for me anyway. I'm tired of this weather.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
But it seems that minimalistic art is to be considered only of the sake of the piece itself. Colors, shapes, shades, etc. If it stirs a strong emotion, then it is not truely minimal. But that is no fun. I want to create a picture the conveys a sense of awe, wonder, fear, lust, whatever, but do with simplified elements. Does this mean I am making up my own definition of minimalism?
And if the picture should not stir up an emotion in the observer, how can they ever even really "like" it?
This challenge seems to have everybody going bonkers. It's a good one.
Art is anything you can get away with.
KPPimaging
Rootsrock Inc.
Where I make $$ from my hobby and you can too
Check out My Gallery
One level of misconception I'm seeing here is an attempt to go out and "find" minimalism and capture it on disc.
If I'm a painter, I stand before my easel, palette in hand, and transfer my thoughts onto the canvas.
If I'm Van Gogh, you'll see highly detailed yet stylized representations of people, places, flowers.
If I'm Da Vinci (the Mona Lisa could actually be considered "minimalist"), you'll see extroadinarily fine detailed drawings, so clear in definition they might appear photograph like.
If I stand before a Jackson Pollock, camera in hand and photograph the canvas on the wall, I am NOT Jackson Pollock.
I photographed a building with a palm tree in front of and reflected in it. Good? I don't know, but it's mine. I could have photographed the building singularly, journalistically, but then it's the architect's work I'm capturing, not mine.
I think two new posts here are perfect in this context. "Cone" and "Egg" because the art is clear and conveyed beautifully and simply. The artists did so by conjuring up images and conveying them to the viewer and their tool of choice happened to be a camera instead of oil and canvas.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
A photographer does not take a picture, he/she makes a picture. We use the picture to make the audience agree with our vision.
... I feel a headache coming on!
:bash
Art is anything you can get away with.
KPPimaging
Rootsrock Inc.
Where I make $$ from my hobby and you can too
Check out My Gallery
This assignment would lend itself well to macro, though, IMO. Some people do a lot of macro.
I could use the ocean and a sailboat if I waited until next week. Well, I could probably do it today. That would not be in pieces. I do a lot of "ocean scapes", so I chose pieces.
Some people stay where they are and do still lifes, or whatever. I do go out to photograph, that is just what I do, or the way that I do it. I don't think there is a right or wrong way.
ginger