I'm interested in this subject and feel like I'm drawn towards it in my photography but not necessarily in the sense that I like to have a lot of empty space in my photos. The definition of minimalism can be pretty broad and personal. I'd be interested in knowing which ones of these (if any) you consider minimalist?
Hi David,
I don't think there are hard rules about either Minimalism or abstract. It would be nice if it was easy wouldn't it?! For me, your 2 and 4 images are minimalist because they are not complex scenes. Also, they have space. The space doesn't necessarily need to be empty if all color, line and texture but rather it should have openness. The other images are rich with detail. I was thinking about the last one and wondering if you had a shallow depth of field on just the boy and the city was out of focus, would it work as a minimal. Not sure.
Since I have probably made this clear as mud, The Digital Photography School website has some good information about minimalism. Check it out!
Lastly, I am about to post a painted wall that I think is both minimal and abstract. We'll see what people say!
Thanks Ruth. Yes, 2 and 4 are probably the most obvious minimalist pics. I am wondering about the others considering that the focal point of each image is small and singular within a much the larger scene. Yes there are details in the surrounding scenes but they aren't necessarily meant to be scrutinized but rather to provide some overall context, mood, etc. This kind of style is something I tend to do but I'm just not sure if it would be considered minimalist per se.
I don't think it matters, and don't care, David! They're good images, and do represent, in all, a bit of a different "take" than typical Fstoppers images. Perhaps they could be seen to exemplify simplicity, rather than minimalism. I don't think Ruth will boot you out of the group! If she does, I'll start a Simplicity group. ;-)
It's "....and Beyond"!
!)
Ha yes, "beyond" does keep it quite open!
Or - what Chris calls Mediumalist. ;)