my current photographic practice

[tirediron]

Interesting; I especially like #4. I would submit that while minimalism is a valid discipline, the removal of all emotion from an image is virtually impossible. That would mean that everyone who viewed it neither liked nor disliked it.

[ratio]

the removal of all emotion from an image is virtually impossible. That would mean that everyone who viewed it neither liked nor disliked it.

I don't want to get into too much of a debate about aesthetics - perhaps I need to explain some points more clearly. What I'm after is a neutrality to my images, an objectivity of view - which when closely scrutinised is of total impossibility but moreover far away from the close cropping and fundamental "blackmailing" use of composition I admit I employ. Perhaps us photographers are all con artists in some way or another - by what we choose to include and omit from a frame.

But there seems to be an interesting disconnect which most people who I know and have seen my images experience. "That's not a good picture, there's nothing there" or "once you've seen one, you've seen them all" - as if people have an overt negative response to minimalism, yet are happy to consume countless sunset over sea pics. To put it differently, it's like somebody saying an image, or a meal is "nice" - an affirmative response but not committed. I wonder whether somebody can have an opinion but not an emotional one? My quest for that answer is ongoing.

[tegan]

The goal of composition is visual impact: drawing the viewer's eye into the photo and holding his/her attention.

Minimal exploration of line and texture with an overall very flat look, with apparently no attention to interesting camera angles, lighting or colour, does NOT accomplish the goal of composition whatsoever.

The comment that they all start looking the same is the expression of the need for visual impact which is what artistic photography is all about.

Tegan

[Marko]

Thanks for posting these ratio!

In general you'll find the best critiques when only 1 or 2 images are posted per thread. (Too much to write when there's more than that...)

I really like minimalist images but they are very hard to do well. One of the keys imo is really keeping distractions to the bare minimum. Unlike a portrait or a still life that have 'built in' focal point(s) and can thus withstand some distractions, the lines and shapes that create a minimalist image are themselves the focal point(s). The eye has a much easier time picking out distractions when the image is "not harmonious".

I completely agree with tirediron here, the strongest image is shot 4, and it's partly due to its lack of distractions. Also the lines in the wall are good. If the central line where the 2 sides of the building meet were even more to the left (rule of thirds) that would make this strong image even stronger.

Hope that helps!

marko

[ratio]

Another:....

[tirediron]

Another:....

Not bad; this is definitely more what I think of when I hear the word 'minimalist'. I wonder though, perhaps only two rows of panels?

[ratio]

Minimal exploration of line and texture with an overall very flat look, with apparently no attention to interesting camera angles, lighting or colour, does NOT accomplish the goal of composition whatsoever.

The comment that they all start looking the same is the expression of the need for visual impact which is what artistic photography is all about.
Tegan

It depends on your idea of what artistic photography is. One of the problems I've been having is finding a forum where they discuss contemporary photo-media art. Also please explain your definition of "visual impact" - and be cautious of it's commercial advertising origins.