The Negative Space of CMC

[ellis_vener_photography]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Big blank spots have no other value in a photograph. They add nothing to the "story"</em></p>

<p><br /> <em>"The term "negative space" was coined in 1998 by a guy named Farber that was a movie critic. This is not some long know method of artful composition"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you always parade your naked ignorance with so much pride? My first introduction to the term "negative space" was from a very high end graphic designer back around 1981 when I was just beginning my career. Negative space is and always had been a very important component of art just as using silences in musical compositions is. some artists use it well, others do not. Irving Pen was a master of it, Avedon too. Even Ansel Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Julius Shulmann and Elliot Erwitt use negative space to create dynamic yet balanced compositions in their photographs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>If the Pot had no clay it would not hold anything, so what would contain it's essence?</em><br>

<em><br /></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>In your analogy you are mistaking what is inside the frame ( the pot's contents) for the frame itself ( the walls of the pot).<br>

Here is a terrific use of negative space in a photograph. : http://www.bestalbumartwork.com/tag/the-beatles-meet-the-beatles-album/</p>

<p>Filling the negative space with type as this Beatles cover band does ruins the effect: <br /> http://www.themerseybeatles.com/band.htm</p>

<blockquote></blockquote>

[david_l3]

<p>Taken with a 100+ year old 8x10 Gundlach view camera on b&w film. </p><div></div>

[david_l3]

<p>Lewis, your pine needles and snow photo is purely sublime. </p>

[lewis_hizer]

<p>Should have mentioned that my "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" was copyright 1979. I have found the term (again, not spending any real time in looking) in a watercolor text by Rex Brandt, copyright 1963. Also numerous references to "negative areas" and "negative shapes" in older books.</p>

<p>David L. - Thank you. I might add that in a 2-dimensional graphic work, the negative space, whether "empty" black / "empty" white "shapes," or whether areas of "emptiness" composed of actual space (depth, air, voids, etc.) are often very important contributors to the composition. Consider the black areas in your 8x10 picture of the flowers. Were it cropped up to the edges of the petals, each now-separated black area would still have an interesting and varied shape, without any monotony though there is a rhythmic repetition of similar elements. Each separate black shape could be lifted out and placed against a white background and it would remain an interesting shape. (I'm not suggesting it be cropped, by the way.)</p>

<p> </p>

[gnashings]

<p>I promised myself to steer clear of this thread now that I said whatever was on my mind about Cliff's initial "assessment" of the concept, simply because I was not willing to get myself worked up and knowing my own tendencies (I'm not exactly soft spoken and un-opinionated... kinda' grumpy old man personality here), I didn't want to get into any sort of mud slinging.</p>

<p>I am SO glad I did! Not only did I realize that the gang here at CMC is probably the nicest bunch of folks I have ever come across in an on-line community (except for Rick, he's a gnome kicking jerk;) ), but THE PHOTOS! Wow! I don't know which one to even comment on, this has turned into a breath-taking assembly of images and its absolutely incredible to see. </p>

<p>David - I am very touched that my humble contribution caused such a reaction in you, I was always secretly happy with that picture, but felt that most people didn't really share my enthusiasm. I am very, very flattered that you did.</p>

<p>Perhaps I'll leave with one more, its a portrait shot on 35mm SFX through a 25 red filter under studio conditions, scanned from 8x10 print</p><div></div>

[tomsheridan]

<p>Think positively, lads ...<br>

Too much yinging and yanging about yin and yang.<br>

Great photos as artistic examples</p>

 

[david_smith110]

<p>Peter, "hiding" is another great contribution. Beautiful photo of a beautiful lady. Well done.</p>

<p>Since this thread seems to be winding down I would like to say "Thank you" to everyone who posted up these wonderful photos. Sorry things seemed to get a little off topic at times. Oh well, those things happen. All in all I am very pleased. Please dont hesitate to post more minimalism/negative space photos as you find/take them. Would love to see many, many more.</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>Hey David, where's the Cliff quote? ;D</p>

[david_smith110]

<p>Hehe...I'm wondering how many people were following the thread for just those. :) Pretty much done with them for now, and I was only posting them in this thread. I suppose we can have one more. Maybe we should call them Cliffs Notes?</p>

<p>"<em>...get a pencil and a pad and become a sketch artist</em>."<br>

-Cliff Manley</p>

<p> </p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>Here's another Cliff quote for you Jeff!</p>

<p>This negative view of modern art as producing truth only through the negation of traditional aesthetic form and traditional norms of beauty, because they have become ideological, is characteristic of <strong>Adorno and of the Frankfurt School.</strong> It is criticized by those who do not share its conception of modern society as a false totality, and that it renders obsolete, traditional conceptions and images of beauty and harmony. <strong>You are all victims of the change artists, the brainwasher's, the Frankfurt controllers!</strong></p>

<p>Although most of the photographs shown in this thread are well composed, and do not follow the pattern of blank space nonsense. <strong>There is no place in photography other than copy space that should be a big blank space.</strong> You choose to criticize me for me saying so, because you have been programmed to do so, <strong>however most of your photos show balance and good composition which proves my point. </strong>Just look at the photos of Lewis Hizer. Except for the dock that has a very large unbalanced blank space, all the rest are very well balanced compositions. The same with Ricks photos, except the Jenna's Day that has an overly large blank space, even too large for copy space, all are balanced good composition. <strong>David L. put it very succinctly saying "negative and positive need each other".</strong> That's called balance. </p>

<p>Study the "Frankfurt School" and find out how many other ways your thinking has been modified. <strong>Nothingness is not art nor is it good photography, sorry!</strong> I'm sure there are many others that will say the same thing but are afraid to get into the head banging. The fact is that very few that have been programmed will ever see the light of day again, they have been hoodwinked, and the blinders never come off. It's usually irreversible.</p>

<p> </p>

[cliffmanley]

And I'm not afraid to say so, I guess everyone else is!<div></div>

[cliffmanley]

<p>If I did this to one of my portraits and titled it <strong>"I'm not going home right now cuz the Bitch is really bent"</strong> is it Art? How about if I sold it for $50,000, would it be Art then? No Never! It's crap! But I'll bet some of you people would call it Art,</p><div></div>

[andylynn]

You are correct. That is crap.

[cliffmanley]

<p>Of course it's crap. But the Frankfurt School Art Critic will tell you that it has all the key elements to be a contemporary masterpiece. Such as a blurry Holga like image that is not really twisted and distorted but a true view of reality, in a setting of evil pitch black night of massive nothingness and darkness, with a few meaningless puffs of drifting fog thrown in for artistic value to give the nothingness motion. All punctuated with a title using the beloved vulgarity of the modern society, describing the struggle between a heterosexual couple, that really should be avoided by having a same sex partner.. It would be Truly a moving emotional masterpiece in their descriptions, for all the brainwashed to drool over. </p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>Warped, Twisted, Ugly, Corrupt, Meaningless, and Grotesque is what they promote. So doesn't that picture qualify as Art in their terms?</p>

[andylynn]

No, there is a difference between crap that is crap and crap that you think is crap because you disagree with the style.

For example, you discount all work invoking negative space (which would include, for example, almost all visual arts,

music, theater, architecture and literature done in Japan for a period spanning several centuries back there) which,

clearly, any informed person including an art critic will tell you is art. Your image up there can be described using some

of the same adjectives as some art works, but you haven't made anything that most art critics would take seriously -

you've only stated your own ignorance.

 

Unless of course everything you've written on this thread constitutes, collectively, a work of performance art, in which

case I can't tell you whether it's any good until I see the conclusion.

[cliffmanley]

<p>Oh Really? Here is an article that was in all the newspapers.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Toddler fools the art world into buying his tomato ketchup paintings</strong><br>

<strong>To the untrained eye, they appear to be simple daubs that could have been created by a two year old. Which is precisely what they are.</strong><br>

<strong>But that didn't stop the supposed experts falling over themselves to acclaim them.</strong><br /><strong>The toddler in question is Freddie Linsky, who has fooled the art world into buying and asking to exhibit his paintings, which include works using tomato ketchup composed while sitting on his high chair.</strong><br>

<strong>One creation of random red and green splodges called Sunrise was captioned: "A bold use of colour. Inspired by the 'plein air' habit of painting by Monet, drawing on the natural world that surrounds us all."</strong></p>

</blockquote>

[cliffmanley]

<p>Andy, I assure you I am not ignorant. I have not as you say <strong>discounted all work using negative space.</strong> Precisely what I said was that LARGE BLANK SPACES HAVE NO PLACE IN PHOTOGRAPHY. Huge blank spaces are not negative space in any creative sense. The key to the positive/negative thing is "Balance" as I have repeatedly kept saying. Here is another quote from someone. I don't remember who:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> Negative space helps define a subject, so subjectively speaking, <strong>negative space works when there’s a balance between the positive and negative spaces</strong>. Negative space also works when it draws the viewer’s eye into the subject at hand.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Read that carefully and you will see the negative space in a photo, painting, etc MUST help to define a "Subject" It cannot BE THE SUBJECT because it is nothing. The author of this thread posted that he wanted to see images where negative space was the major theme. There is no such thing, it cannot be a subject. He also said "the more the better" which shows no composition or balance. I tried to respond to this new photog that said he has only been taking pictures for three months, that overly large areas of blank space had no place in a photograph unless they were left as copy space. I said it at the beginning of this post and I'm saying it again. I don't know why everyone wants to bash me for trying to help him to be able to compose a photograph like the beautiful photos of Rick or Lewis Hizer. Large Blank space is not balanced nor can it be a subject. You simply cannot have a photograph of nothingness that is not also meaningless. However the Frankfurt School will tell you otherwise, but they tell you that for a reason. That in turn makes you a subject of control which is precisely what they want.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<blockquote>

<p><em>But the Frankfurt School Art Critic will tell you that it has all the key elements to be a contemporary masterpiece.</em> </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Just because a piece of work has "all the key elements to be a contemporary masterpiece. " doesn't make such a work a "masterpiece." That is like saying an amateur pianist performance of "Chopsticks" is the same as Rudolph Serkin performing Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata". After all bot hare played on a piano and both use the same notes. </p>

[cliffmanley]

Yes Ellis, that is correct. And that is precisely what the School of Frankfurt has done. They put total crap next to True art in Museums around the world and say they are the same. And just like your chopsticks example, they also promote total crap that they call music..

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>Cliff your self portrait says it all. Nice use of negative space too. </p>

[david_smith110]

<p>Cliff, I really need to clarify something here. I am the OP and I have not been shooting for 3 months. I have been shooting FILM for 3 months. I was shooting digital quite a bit several years ago.</p>

<p>Also, I havent really corrected this but when I said "more is better" I was really referring to "the more pictures posted the better". Go back and re-read the first post with this in mind. I didnt mention it originaly because of the negative tone of your first reply and from other posts of yours I have read you really dont seem like to be like a person who responds to reason very well. Your posts here bear that out. </p>

<p>How pompous do you actually have to be to exclaim that becuase YOU dont like a particular school of art then it has no merit? Are you actually serious? I think much has become clear from your post that mentioned same sex relationships. Nobody has even come close to drawing that type of connection in this thread but somehow YOU managed it. Many of these schools of art that you rail against embrace very progressive ideas of Art and Lifestlye that simply scare you and you cant deal with it. That does not make them any less valid but with your narrow minded view of the world you simply cant grasp that.</p>

<p>ART is an expression in the natural world of the human soul. And there is <strong>no limit</strong> to that.</p>

<p>"<em>All punctuated with a title using the beloved vulgarity of the modern society, describing the struggle between a heterosexual couple, that really should be avoided by having a same sex partner..</em>"<br>

-Cliff Manley</p>

<p>That right there sir is fear, plain and simple. The only thing 'grotesque' in this thread is your intolerance.</p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>I have no fear or intolerance of any kind. I believe everyone should have the choice to do whatever they choose, as long as it harms no one else. I could care less who someone sleeps with. I was merely pointing out the agenda that the School of Frankfurt promotes and why people think the way they do. Anyone that educates them self on the subject will see how this has impacted the world we live in and how it gives the elite more control over the masses. Just look at the world today. What a mess. And that's not just my opinion. They are rioting all over world and are waking up to the controllers than have enslaved them. So I'm done with this thread and you can bash me all you want but don't expect any further reply. And huge blank space is not a School of Art. Blank space is meaningless unless it balances or enhances a real subject.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Are you sure this isn't a troll? It definitely looks like a troll. If it's a serious discussion, it's one of the strangest I've seen here in a while.</p>

[photo5]

<blockquote>

<p>That right there sir is fear, plain and simple. The only thing 'grotesque' in this thread is your intolerance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, frankly I am sick and tired of reading your personal attacks against Cliff Manley. If I see any more of it in this thread or anywhere else, I will send a complaint to Josh Root.</p>