This month's minimalism contest

<p>Without intending to discuss individual entries, I would like to state that I'm really enjoying the work presented in this month's minimalism contest.</p>

<p>Exactly!</p>

<p>A lot of them, and this is not a judgment of their quality, don't seem minimalist to me.</p>

<p>I guess Photo.net did not define minimalist, so it's left up to the photographer to determine that. What is and isn't minimalist is certainly a debatable point - and<em> has</em> been debated often. There is, and can be, no strict definition. What's minimalist to me may not be to you, and vice versa.</p>

<p>See http://sites.google.com/site/minimalismgroup/define for one set of opinions</p>

<p>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimalism for another

<p>Since I'm the guest judge on this one, I guess in this case it's my opinion that counts! I'm also not going to comment on what's minimalist or what's not and whether I think any images posted so far are or aren't minimalist</p>

<p>

<p>Bob, there are plenty of contests where there are judges who keep entries to within a reasonable degree of the stated topic or genre without necessarily insisting on a "strict definition" of it. But I wasn't suggesting that. I was making an observation. If it helps you to dismiss my view by saying yours is the only one that counts, then by all means, have at it. When I speak, I assume it's understood I'm giving my opinion. That should have been made obvious by my saying, by way of emphasis, that they "don't seem minimalist <strong><em>to me</em></strong>." My phrasing was meant to offer a clue that I wasn't being definitional in my statement, but rather saying how the work in general appeared to me. I never said or implied it wasn't a debatable point, but your conclusion, ironically, seems geared toward making it non-debatable. And the fact that some things don't have a strict definition doesn't mean that anything and everything goes. But as you felt it appropriate by way of response to state that it's your opinion alone that rises to the top on this one, I don't in any way want to take that important accolade away from you. It must feel quite powerful, so . . . you're the one, man . . . you're the one and only.</p>

<p>These words from the page Bob Atkins cited were most helpful to me:<br>

Minimalism is not easy to define. But Minimalist pictures usually:</p>

<ul>

<li>are easy to look at</li>

<li>can be perceived fast</li>

<li>depict small things</li>

<li>comprised of few elements</li>

</ul>

<p>So then, a few small, fast, easy to look at, things.</p>

<p>Sounds easy enough.</p>

<p>I wonder if they'll ever announce the winners of last month's contest. :)</p>

<p>Easy to look at. I like that. "I need extra brain processing and eyeball support to look at your photos, if only I could just turn my eyes and look at it normally..."</p>

<p>Sorry Fred, not interesting in arguing with you about things you find in my comments that exist only in your head.</p>

<p> End of this discussion

<p>To me, minimalism and simplicity, while not necessarily synonymous, have a lot in common. Howard put it well in referring to an image's containing a small number of elements. </p>

<p>Patrick - I suspect last month's winner will be announced soon. Alison takes care of that and she was away last week. I think she's back in the office on Friday, but may have online access before that.

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry Fred, not interested in arguing with you about things you find in my comments that exist only in your head.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li>are easy to look at</li>

<li>can be perceived fast</li>

<li>depict small things</li>

<li>comprised of few elements</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>Why do I see similarities in these two quotes? The minimalism is palpable. Thanks for the example Howard and Bob. And thanks to Fred for creating a great setup for such an inspired minimalist comeback.</p>

<p>That's what makes Photo.net forums so interesting and entertaining.</p>