Composition Rules...really?

[Sirius Glass]

what does a court of law have to do with the salvador dali portrait a few pages back or a 15 page long discussion on composition ?

I guess that you missed the memo that everyone else got: Salvador Dali is not on trial for a felony. Why do you constantly weasel word your responses to get the spot light on you rather than the subjects at hand?

 

[michr]

...
as i said 5 pages back a tired argument and it really has nothing to do with this thread.

I know, and I guess I'm just feeding the troll by responding.

 

[removed account4]

I know, and I guess I'm just feeding the troll by responding.

hopefully we'll all get over the bridge

 

[Sirius Glass]

hopefully we'll all get over the bridge

So are you admitting that you are hiding under that bridge? :eek: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t:

[Hey, you set yourself up for that one and I could not resist! :devil:]

 

[markbarendt]

what does a court of law have to do with the salvador dali portrait a few pages back or a 15 page long discussion on composition ?

Nothing.

 

[removed account4]

I guess that you missed the memo that everyone else got .....

no, i didn't miss any memo but it seems you disregarded the thread topic which is on composition. unfortunately you have done your best
to turn this into another one of your anti digital soapboxes, this time bringing up truthfulness and photoshop and courts of law ( and other unrelated nonsense ) ..
and of course you do your best to mock people who say things you don't understand.
if you want to start some anti digital anti creativity thread please do it in the soapbox so you don't polute an active threads on other subjects.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I think Ken's posts regarding the difference between digital and film are being misinterpreted as being anti-digital. We've been over and over this. There is a fundamental difference. It does not, however, have anything to do with art, design, creativity etc., nor does it make either medium inherently "superior"/"inferior" in any way.

As always, Michael is one of the few to simply read directly and not add any extraneous personal axe grinding. He and I don't always agree. But I can always count on him to read and think and respond with refreshing accuracy and clarity. Would that a few more could do the same, the better off we might all be.

My series of posts in question began solely in response to John's misinformation regarding relative media trustworthiness. I understand that he really, really wants things to be what he wants them to be. And in matters of art where anything goes, he can have that. But in matters of established physical facts, he cannot. No matter how hard he wants it. Or how vocal (22 posts thus far, the most of anyone) he tries to be to get it.

I said nothing previously regarding the relative functional merits and/or values of the two photographic technologies, other than to simply observe that due to their unavoidable physical differences there are unavoidable differences in their inherent levels of trustworthiness as potential arbiters of fact.

Neither is perfect, but one is decidedly and demonstrably superior. (See Maris' very eloquent earlier post.) I even made a point of including both film and sensor in my examples.

These physical differences between the two are not a matter of crowd-sourced opinion. They cannot be altered any more than a greater number of uninformed thumbs-ups could cause the sun to rise in the west and set in the east. Physical things simply are what they are. We can describe them. But we cannot fundamentally change them.

Since this thread has now sadly death-spiraled to the point of desperately seeking as many thumbs-up as may be convinced in a vain effort to rewrite nature and save face, I choose to bow out and leave that exercise to those for whom it is an important pursuit.

That said, I also think we have reached the point where (there was a url link here which no longer exists) in another thread, and (there was a url link here which no longer exists), becomes part of the critical path.

With any luck, in the near future new forum tools will exist to more easily segregate these unfortunate digital slugfests into their more appropriate venue. I truly hope and expect the resulting peaceful silence on APUG to be nothing less than exquisitely deafening.



Ken

 

[eddie]

To get back on topic...

I've often wondered about the origins of "rules" of composition. Does it stem from our primordial past, perhaps related to some sense of calm/order which soothed our cave dwelling ancestors? There has to be a universal reason that most people respond to a well composed piece of art in a similar manner. I can picture contemporaries of the Lascaux painter saying, "Wow. You rendered that bison really well. Well composed. Nice use of perspective. Gonna be a good hunt."
Since there are accepted standards of composition, they have to come from somewhere, other than just being told they're standards, don't they? Or the standards just things we've been taught for centuries, having little to do with any inherent genes?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

To get back on topic...

Good move...



Ken

 

[eddie]

Not being altruistic, Ken. I've long wondered where the "rules" come from.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The rules came from people teaching others how to make their photographs more interesting. For example, in public school I found a book about photographic composition. In the book a number of recommendations or rules were suggested. There were two that I happen to still remember:

• Move in closer to the subject to have the subject dominate the photograph and get unrelated things out of the frame.
• Watch out that things do not come out of the subject such as trees and telephone poles growing out the a head or a walk-don't walk sign sticking out of someone's ear.

 

[eddie]

The rules of composition were around long before photography, and are pretty much the same for all artistic endeavors. Certainly, they're now taught, but I'm curious about the origins of the rules. The Big Bang of composition, so to speak.

 

[Sirius Glass]

For that I suggest you look at the art theories that arose during the Renaissance. During that time art moved from icons et al to develop perspective, light modelling, and theories of composition.

 

[eddie]

I have looked into many art theories. I'm asking about what part of the human experience led us to define the theories. Most people are attracted to balance, complimentary colors, symmetry, etc. My question is why? I think there must be a primordial explanation, dating back to before books, and well prior to the Renaissance.

 

[markbarendt]

My series of posts in question began solely in response to John's misinformation regarding relative media trustworthiness.

It's not mis-information Ken, it's just a different point of view. Simply put that point of view says "photographs are not trustworthy, period". This point of view is agnostic with regard to medium and simply doesn't care about details like latent images or which way the electrons move, because the rest of the rest of the system can't be trusted.

Here in the context of a discussion of composition (manipulating artistically what is to be seen by the film) it seems almost ludicrous to assume that the results of something willfully contrived could be considered as a potential arbiter of any fact that may matter in the real world.

It's art.

 

[eddie]

While it may be easier to manipulate a digital image than an analog one, both are capable of being less than honest in their depictions. With that, neither can be considered trustworthy.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Not being altruistic, Ken. I've long wondered where the "rules" come from.

Maybe not altruistic, but I'll try to keep the ball moving forward positively here. This thread has had more than its share of unnecessary disruptions.

I have looked into many art theories. I'm asking about what part of the human experience led us to define the theories. Most people are attracted to balance, complimentary colors, symmetry, etc. My question is why? I think there must be a primordial explanation, dating back to before books, and well prior to the Renaissance.

Perhaps some of the notions of more or less favorable composition have their roots in the symmetry of the human form? We are all bilaterally symmetric across a left-right vertical plane through our centerlines. Not front-back. And certainly not top-bottom. But left-right was a pretty good try by Nature.

I once read a physiologic definition of beauty which posited that the greater the degree of perfect symmetry across that left-right plane, the greater the generalized* sense of "beauty" is perceived. Especially in the facial features.

Maybe such a proto-perception of greater and lesser symmetry was part of the original sense of "better", when there wasn't much else in the cave from which to draw conclusions?

Ken

* Meaning most, but not all, of the time.

 

[eddie]

I like your theory, Ken. It certainly makes sense, and offers up an explanation which makes an argument for composition to be primordial in nature.

 

[removed account4]

hi eddie
while i don't really have a theory where it came from
i do have a un-educated guess
it seems that if you look at ancient art ( 6000bc and older )
it is a lot of fertility dolls / humanoid statuary. its all based on symmetry.
if you look at 2d and 3d artworks and architecture from the fertile crescent
( mesopotamia, sumeria assyria )
you will see it is still based on symmetry .. and until the late 1800 and early 1900
art and architecture had a pleasing, comfortable symmetry to it. maybe colors too
the ancients knew different colors evoked different feelings. that's not to say there might
have been people making things that were asymmetrical or not pleasing but there werne't as many so
they got lost in the shuffle and people didn't miss them (natural selection/survival of the fittest of the art world )
kings, queens, priests and priestesses were in control of the world so it had to do with their tastes and the skill of the artist as well.
in the end, you are probably right a guy in lasceaux probably grunted the caveman equivalent of " c'est ca ! " when it looked and felt good.

 

[blansky]

Maybe not altruistic, but I'll try to keep the ball moving forward positively here. This thread has had more than its share of unnecessary disruptions.



Perhaps some of the notions of more or less favorable composition have their roots in the symmetry of the human form? We are all bilaterally symmetric across a left-right vertical plane through our centerlines. Not front-back. And certainly not top-bottom. But left-right was a pretty good try by Nature.

I once read a physiologic definition of beauty which posited that the greater the degree of perfect symmetry across that left-right plane, the greater the generalized* sense of "beauty" is perceived. Especially in the facial features.

Maybe such a proto-perception of greater and lesser symmetry was part of the original sense of "better", when there wasn't much else in the cave from which to draw conclusions?

Ken

* Meaning most, but not all, of the time.

And probably not just the human form. In all things which we find beauty or are drawn to, there is an inborn almost universal response. It seems it's about proportion and about texture and how they arouse our senses.

So where did the "rules of composition" come from? Probably an evolution of our responses to what we observe and what we found sexual, or comforting and conversely dangerous and exotic. And these feelings carry though in everything we do and think. Why is a baby, puppy, kitten etc cute and a full grown version, not so cute. Why is a beautiful woman almost universal appealing in every culture. Why is masculinity almost universal in every culture.

My guess it's all inborn, and the "rules" are just versions of this written down.

I once saw a movie about comedians, and they talked about words. Why are some words funny and others not. It's just an inborn feeling we get when we hear them.

Why has every human civilization created a religion, and then claimed theirs is the only true religion.

I guess we have an inborn need for rules and boundaries and structure. And we also have an inborn need to break or go beyond those boundaries as well. But we must find comfort in them, to erect them in the first place. Humans do not function well within chaos.

 

[cliveh]

Because we left right to right in the western world, does that mean the eastern world has a mirror set of rules for composition?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Humans do not function well within chaos.

Fear is all about things we cannot control, and which may therefore hurt us. Chaos is the real world embodiment of such fear. Chaos is all about unknowns and loss of control.

Five million years of evolution have taught us well.

Ken

 

[Peltigera]

Because we left right to right in the western world, does that mean the eastern world has a mirror set of rules for composition?

I have always assumed so. It is certainly the case that the Chinese read vertically and produce landscapes in a vertical format.

www.johns-old-cameras.blogspot.co.uk

 

[Vaughn]

...Humans do not function well within chaos.

This caught my eye, also. It might be one of the main drivers of art...to bring some form to the chaos and to somehow stand above the chaos for awhile, rather than trying to hide or isolate oneself from chaos.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

This caught my eye, also. It might be one of the main drivers of art...to bring some form to the chaos and to somehow stand above the chaos for awhile, rather than trying to hide or isolate oneself from chaos.

The normal reaction to fear is to run from the perceived danger. And implicit in the act of running from something is that in the process we must also be running toward something else. In the case of creative people running from perceived Chaos, perhaps that something else is Art?

Ken