I've seen paintings with conflicting points of interest and so many details that they appear cluttered. Rather than invite the viewer to look around and notice interesting details, they are confusing and don't really have a clear meaning. I'm reminded of a quote by Wendy Carlos: "What is full of redundancy or formula is predictably boring. What is free of all structure or discipline is randomly boring. In between lies art."
I personally like art, whether photography, painting, music, or whatever, that is pleasing and inviting, rich in detail but not too complex to understand easily. With most artforms, the artist starts with emptiness (e.g., a blank canvas) and adds elements to make the work match his or her vision. Adding distracting details is possible (and often done), but it takes extra effort.
Photography is different. The photographer sees something inspiring and seeks to capture it. But film and digital sensors are unforgiving in recording all of the details in the scene, whether or not wanted (or even noticed). So a photograph taken without careful thought and planning will tend to be cluttered with distracting elements. Thus simpler photos are usually more effective.
But there does seem to be a trend today toward art that is simple. I'll avoid speculating on the reasons for that here, but close with this observation: A simple image with one subject can be interesting. It depends on the subject and how the artist has interpreted it. |
