minimalism

Is there a photographic equivalent of the minimalism movement in

painting and sculpture? I'm curious to know what photographers have

worked in this style, if any.

Thanks,

Dan

Perhaps I'm not qualified to answer this, having no significant art history background, but I would think that several of Kertesz's photos are pretty close to what is usually labelled as minimalism.

Yes, but there's not much to it.

Some of Harry Callahan's work.

Dan<p>Sorry, can't remember this guys name but I guess some of his work could be described as minimalist.<p><a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">www.keithlaban.co.uk</a><div></div>

Thanks Hans for the best laugh I've ever had on Photo.net!

Yes.<p>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/ggfog.jpg"><br>

<i>Golden Gate Bridge on a Foggy Day, Copyright 2002 Jeff Spirer</i>

</center>

David Fokos is the bomb. I love his work..

 

http://www.robertkleingallery.com/gallery/fokos

same photo as Jeff's, on a moonless night.<div></div>

OH yeah...

 

I would classify Chip in this catagory.. Chip Hooper

 

http://www.chiphooper.com/

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1691523&size=lg">The minimum is not always zero.</a>

_Yes_

Thanks, all. Incidentally, Keith, I love your found paintings series. Excellent work.

Dan

Check out Richard Misrach's "Sky" series.

 

BTW, I'll bet Jeff gets big bucks for his fog image :>]

I was leaving aside the fog image which, well, is insurpassable.

Some <a href="http://www.aaronsiskind.org/images.html">Aaron Siskind<a/>.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.peachgallery.com/artistWork.asp?artist=89">Peter Felllows<a/>, who (in this selection) looks a lot like Chip Hooper.

A while back whilst feeling mischievous, I uploaded the image below to the gallery here on photo.net. The ratings came flooding in :-}<div></div>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1330390"><br> <br>

During last winter's Northeast Blizzard. About as minimal as I've done.

There's nothing more minimalist than the classically understated, left-the-lens-cap-on school.

They prefer to call themselves "Photography in the absence of light".

I would say that photography overall is plagued with minimalism, perhaps in a perjorative rather than a "school of art" sense. Many, many photographers strip down the image to its simplest forms, removing it from its environment. They do this so they have maximum control and can produce an image as they intend, but in so doing they often sterilize the image.

What is minimalism? The opposite of glamour. But in no way abstract, minimalism stays in concert. Always! Now, what differentiate minimalism as art, from a simple document? Minimalism communicates a message, not a knowledge.

people start to write here more and more confusing things. Glamour? Abstract? CONCERT??? hm.

Sorry for the typo and thanks for observing it: I meant CONCRETE when I wrote concert. As for the other terms (abstract and glamour) do they really confused you casab', or did you meant they are too sophisticated for a minimalist taste? Is the word "nihilism" confusing (or too sophisticated) too? - Because I would have something to add:

 

I'm one of those believing that minimalism is not nihilism. I see nihilism as a spoiled attitude, hiding in fact a big need to astonish people with something, ...with anything. Finally, at a more deep level, nihilism is the opposite of what it pretends to be.

Minimalism, to me, is ment to have maximum impact on the viewer, with the least visual intrusion but a valid canvas needs to be presented. The Golden Gate in a fog, is not valid. Why, because it an unimaginative image that any second grader could come up with. I work in the minimalist world and consider the art with respect. What that means is, I care what the image thinks of me; a dufus or a person with thought.

 

Here's an example of a minimalistic image.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1161926&size=lg

 

I leave the objects in the frame to act as a frame in which to leave the viewer to their own thoughts; a window if you will. As the viewer's thoughts are intended to finish the image.

 

In this next image, it has even less in it to clutter the mind. It starts out on the right and ends in the fog on the left, a testimony to quiet and solitude. There's your thoughts and nothing more. The viewer's thoughts, again, completes the image. But there's something identifiable in the image.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1161904&size=lg

 

I'm big on sky and include, intentionally a lot of it in my images but there's always going to be an indentifiable object in the scene to give one an earthy grounding. Minimalism is not about who can get the least into an image. If that were the case then all we'd need to do is just paint a wall red and take pictures of it, all day long. Thousands of images of the same image of nothingness. The image has no purpose, no thought, no intelligence, nothing to be gained, empty, vapid, stupid. Having identifiable images in an image neither invalidates an image or prevents it from being minimalistic. Grounding with identifiable objects is a good thing:-)

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1819545&size=lg

 

I'll never gain acceptance in the art world because I personally think they're products of nutty thinking and they rightfully will think I'm offensive. Well one thing's for sure at least one of us will be right as I personally think, we're both right:-)

 

Here's a final example of a minimalistic image as I continue in my quest to fit in. Consider the image, a self portrait:-)

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1903901&size=lg

 

Hope my above is found insightful.