
I’ll admit that this shot goes a little bit overboard when it comes to the reduction of tonal range, but I in my defense, I toned it for the print, and it looks pretty good to me on paper.
I’ve delighted in minimalism ever since I began taking classes at RIT. It sort of started as an excuse to get out of doing a lot of work in my 2D Design class, but the more I delved into it the more I realized how much it fit into my mode of thinking about art. I think of it this way (mathematicians will probably hate me for this): There is an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 100. You can zoom into an interval as deeply as you can, and you’ll keep finding more values. Take that principle and apply it to a smaller range–say, 0 and 1. The same thing applies. By that virtue, there is the same amount of values between and relatively small interval as there is between something much larger. The reductionist challenges our sensitivity to these minute, continuous ranges. He boils something down ’till what the mind sees becomes more than what is actually part of the work. The brain is very good at filling in gaps.
I’ve dabbled in this with the tonal range of my photographs. The above shot is a pretty extreme example, and it isn’t by any means something I’d put in a portfolio. My intent is to reduce input in order to amplify output. If I make the eye more sensitive to the subtle tonal range of photographs like this one, it will naturally fill in the tones that aren’t there. This is my idea of what minimalism is.
Many minimalists try to remove themselves from the work as much as possible, using machines to create their lines and computers to create their forms. It treat it in the opposite manner. I’m attempting to create an experience for the viewer through my own personal vision and experience. I attach myself to my work as much as I can because of this.
I sound like a fine art major.