Q from a novice. is this minimalistic? static vs dynamic, steadfast anchor in a random evolving surrounding - albeit just a rock
Q from a novice. is this minimalistic? static vs dynamic, steadfast anchor in a random evolving surrounding - albeit just a rock
Nice job, Marius. Why do you care if it's minimalistic or not? It's just a general descriptive term. And wouldn't call you a novice, but kudos for your modesty. FWIW I think it is appopriate to post here, and in Landscape & Nature.
thank you, Chris. for the insight. was just pondering if a minimalistic image is one where the main subject is isolated to the degree where there are almost no busy surroundings and /or more than 1 subject.
in this case, I wanted to emphasize the static vs dynamic nature in 1 frame. if a viewer complains that the surroundings are distracting, then this is not minimalistic?
The moderator, AB, ain't complaining. And if any other viewer complains, that's the viewer's problem!
I would classify this as minimalistic due to the number of elements . I think like anything else there are differing degrees but as long as you view it that way then I'm certainly cool with it.
As Chris indicates this is not the work of a novice - nicely conceived, nicely balanced (I actually think the rocks on the left play their part), and nicely executed.
Well done!
Seeing your image in a group for "minimalism, abstract, and experimental," doesn't raise any red flags if that is what you're getting at? I am with Chris and Alan with regard to the semantics involved and ultimately, for me:
1. A minimal image can be static or dynamic
2. I consider yours minimal not only in composition, subject, and scene, but also influenced by color and tone
Heck, whatever we call it, I dig it. Nice shot man.
Thank you Gentlemen, for the feedback. I do appreciate it.