Tree In Head A.Leibovitz

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes, but why would we frame doing what we want (deliberately composing an image, e.g. with the subject in focus, if that's what we want) as "following rules"? It is a little backwards. I guess the obvious answer is that for many if us amateurs, we're not actually visually aware enough to be fully deliberate in composing, so heuristics are useful to arrive at a picture that pleases even when we're not fully aware of and deliberate with all elements.

I think part of the problem is that we're not use to looking at scenes that are two dimensional as in a photo. Our eyes see the whole panorama in real life and in 3D. SO it takes awhile for our eyes and brains to adjust to how apicture is shown in 2D in a smaller format ratio of let;s say 3:4 or 3:2. When I switched from 4:3 photo taking to 16:9 format to match video format, it only took about twenty minutes to adjust how I was laying out the compositions. Our eyes do adjust to format changes and 2D.

One thing that might help is to try moving around a little so the camera is looking at the same scene from slightly different aspects. Take a picture of each and compare when you get home. Slow down and see if you can determine which scene looks more pleasant to you. Things come into play such as balance.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Putting it another way:

If you believe there are rules (or principles) in photography, you can't explain Lee Friedlander.

Sort of like if you still live in a Newtonian universe, you can't explain black holes.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Three problems with that.

(1) They're always devised after the fact, and often from an average of occurences—"I've seen x number of good photos that are set up in such a way therefore it must be a rule that good photos should be set up in such a way." It's a logical fallacy that's defined by the latin phrase Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

(2) They fail to explain why there are also a great number of good to excellent to great photos that do not follow the so-called rule.

The logical fallacy that comes with the second problem is very interesting but more insidious, in that after inventing a non-existing rule it's existence is justified by the idea that great masters also know when to break the rule, hence their "genius" and "originality".

(3) In the history of many arts, rules, as I said, are devised after the fact. They are indeed seen by followers as characteristics or principles that describe why the works of the original creator (or creators) are good, and therefore how to reproduce them. What happens, on the contrary, is that those who follow these characteristics or principles produce works that are generic, banal, cliché, and certainly not better than others. Think of the tons of immensely boring symphonies produced in the early 19th-century that followed the "rules" of Beethovenian sonata form, or the saccharine evanescence of all the paintings that wished to copy the "rules" of impressionism after Monet.

What helps describe why some pictures are better than others is precisely what falls beyond characteristics and principles.

I think you hit upon the enigma. How to break a rule and yet be exceptional to the viewer regardless. We work and practice years just to become average only to be told our work is boring. How depressing!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Putting it another way:

If you believe there are rules (or principles) in photography, you can't explain Lee Friedlander.

Sort of like if you still live in a Newtonian universe, you can't explain black holes.

It's following the rule of "Be different."

It also follows other rules. The eye is in complete focus. It has a catch light so it's not dead. It;s the subject of the photo. It;s purpose is to look inside of the viewers' minds.

 

[snusmumriken]

(3) In the history of many arts, rules, as I said, are devised after the fact. They are indeed seen by followers as characteristics or principles that describe why the works of the original creator (or creators) are good, and therefore how to reproduce them. What happens, on the contrary, is that those who follow these characteristics or principles produce works that are generic, banal, cliché, and certainly not better than others. Think of the tons of immensely boring symphonies produced in the early 19th-century that followed the "rules" of Beethovenian sonata form, or the saccharine evanescence of all the paintings that wished to copy the "rules" of impressionism after Monet.

I don't think I agree with this. The exposition-development-conclusion of sonata form is a naturally satisfying pattern. There have been hundreds of pieces of music that tried to do something different and are even more boring than the bad sonata-form ones. I think the brain craves completeness, just as we expect from a story. Speaking of which, look at the countless really tedious novelists that have tried to be clever and reject Humpty Dumpty's advice. Breaking form isn't necessarily better than following it safely.

I think we also have to be careful to distinguish fashions in photography from what gives a photograph lasting and wide appeal - what makes you say, after seeing it for the 130th time, "That's a bloody good photograph" (to quote the words of Robert Blomfield). I don't think you have to try to be different. You are different. Your photos will never be the same as those taken by the person next to you, and it's not to do with following or breaking norms. There's something else that makes one photo fascinating and another banal.

 

[Pieter12]

I think part of the problem is that we're not use to looking at scenes that are two dimensional as in a photo. Our eyes see the whole panorama in real life and in 3D. SO it takes awhile for our eyes and brains to adjust to how apicture is shown in 2D in a smaller format ratio of let;s say 3:4 or 3:2. When I switched from 4:3 photo taking to 16:9 format to match video format, it only took about twenty minutes to adjust how I was laying out the compositions. Our eyes do adjust to format changes and 2D.

One thing that might help is to try moving around a little so the camera is looking at the same scene from slightly different aspects. Take a picture of each and compare when you get home. Slow down and see if you can determine which scene looks more pleasant to you. Things come into play such as balance.

How does that jibe with verticals and square compositions?

 

[Pieter12]

I don't think I agree with this. The exposition-development-conclusion of sonata form is a naturally satisfying pattern. There have been hundreds of pieces of music that tried to do something different and are even more boring than the bad sonata-form ones. I think the brain craves completeness, just as we expect from a story. Speaking of which, look at the countless really tedious novelists that have tried to be clever and reject Humpty Dumpty's advice. Breaking form isn't necessarily better than following it safely.

I think we also have to be careful to distinguish fashions in photography from what gives a photograph lasting and wide appeal - what makes you say, after seeing it for the 130th time, "That's a bloody good photograph" (to quote the words of Robert Blomfield). I don't think you have to try to be different. You are different. Your photos will never be the same as those taken by the person next to you, and it's not to do with following or breaking norms. There's something else that makes one photo fascinating and another banal.

On the contrary, art that is different from the "pleasing" can be challenging and take time and effort to appreciate. Discordant music, abstract art, non-traditional performances can require some time to sink in. Most people look at a piece of art for less than a minute. In museums more time is spent reading the labels and wall text than looking at the art itself. Try contemplating something for 45 minute or better yet 4 hours.

 

[snusmumriken]

On the contrary, art that is different from the "pleasing" can be challenging and take time and effort to appreciate. Discordant music, abstract art, non-traditional performances can require some time to sink in. Most people look at a piece of art for less than a minute. In museums more time is spent reading the labels and wall text than looking at the art itself. Try contemplating something for 45 minute or better yet 4 hours.

Believe me, I have spent a lot of my life listening to not just discordant but atonal, serial, 14-tone, you-name-it. I've always been prepared to give it time. But little of it has stuck. (I could list those composers who have, but this isn't about me.)

As for contemplating art: I think you make my point for me. What makes a photo worth contemplating for 45 minutes or 4 hours or a lifetime? Is it just because it has broken (current) norms?

 

[Pieter12]

Believe me, I have spent a lot of my life listening to not just discordant but atonal, serial, 14-tone, you-name-it. I've always been prepared to give it time. But little of it has stuck. (I could list those composers who have, but this isn't about me.)

As for contemplating art: I think you make my point for me. What makes a photo worth contemplating for 45 minutes or 4 hours or a lifetime? Is it just because it has broken (current) norms?

To each his own. I'm not sure that even after 45minutes with some photos or art, I would be willing to spend any more time with it. Although I might appreciate it a bit more. On the other hand, there is art and music that does not gain anything from more contemplation. It is strictly superficial.
Give me 4 hours in the Rothko Chapel anytime. Well, not now, it is closed.

 

[cliveh]

Art and composition are also related to the fashion of the time and some fashions are more enduring than others.

 

[Don_ih]

If you believe there are rules (or principles) in photography, you can't explain Lee Friedlander.

It took me a while, but I knew there was an appropriate American Monuments photo

 

[MattKing]

Art and composition are also related to the fashion of the time and some fashions are more enduring than others.

They also relate to cultural, linguistic, religious and geographic norms in place at the place and time that the Art is created.

 

[BrianShaw]

If they were called preferences rather than rules, we wouldn't be arguing about them so much. We artists aren't rule followers. No one tells us what to do.

Scientists and mathematicians have tried since the Middle Ages to derive a mathematical basis for beauty… successfully.

 

[BrianShaw]

Three problems with that.

(1) They're always devised after the fact, and often from an average of occurences—"I've seen x number of good photos that are set up in such a way therefore it must be a rule that good photos should be set up in such a way." It's a logical fallacy that's defined by the latin phrase Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

(2) They fail to explain why there are also a great number of good to excellent to great photos that do not follow the so-called rule.

The logical fallacy that comes with the second problem is very interesting but more insidious, in that after inventing a non-existing rule it's existence is justified by the idea that great masters also know when to break the rule, hence their "genius" and "originality".

(3) In the history of many arts, rules, as I said, are devised after the fact. They are indeed seen by followers as characteristics or principles that describe why the works of the original creator (or creators) are good, and therefore how to reproduce them. What happens, on the contrary, is that those who follow these characteristics or principles produce works that are generic, banal, cliché, and certainly not better than others. Think of the tons of immensely boring symphonies produced in the early 19th-century that followed the "rules" of Beethovenian sonata form, or the saccharine evanescence of all the paintings that wished to copy the "rules" of impressionism after Monet.

What helps describe why some pictures are better than others is precisely what falls beyond characteristics and principles.

I completely agree with your conclusion but not the introduction. We often don’t know why things are preferred on an individual basis; hence the statistical average is used in summary. The middle reads a bit like word salad.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The middle reads a bit like word salad.

Careful. I believe the expression "word salad" is essentially used in a political context nowadays...

I agree it isn't clear. When I have too little time to deal with complex concepts, I think in French and translate in English as I'm writing. Maybe it's time to turn to AI for the translating part...

 

[BrianShaw]

Careful. I believe the expression "word salad" is essentially used in a political context nowadays...

I agree it isn't clear. When I have too little time to deal with complex concepts, I think in French and translate in English as I'm writing. Maybe it's time to turn to AI for the translating part...

I suppose you are correct.

I dodn't intend it to have the following implications either. LOL I was trying to convey, and did so rather poorly, that the discussion was deeply philisophical in nature.

Word salad - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MattKing]

We shall just agree to ignore the relatively current political connotations of the phrase, shall we not?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Scientists and mathematicians have tried since the Middle Ages to derive a mathematical basis for beauty… successfully.

Wait... How could there have been successive successful mathematical models for beauty? If your mathematical model conceived in the Middle Ages is replaced by a new mathematical model in the Renaissance, which, in turn, is replaced by a new mathematical model in the Baroque, etc., then you math is (always) flawed. And if the model is constantly revised with cultural changes, then it means it is not at all mathematical but cultural.

 

[Don_ih]

If your mathematical model conceived in the Middle Ages is replaced by a new mathematical model in the Renaissance, which, in turn, is replaced by a new mathematical model in the Baroque, etc., then you math is (always) flawed.

No, the math is always right - it's the age that's flawed.

 

[Pieter12]

They also relate to cultural, linguistic, religious and geographic norms in place at the place and time that the Art is created.

Some art is timeless. A number of ancient Greek statues come to mind off the top of my head. Regardless of norms, many quite beautiful pieces have been created since man started to make art.

 

[BrianShaw]

No, the math is always right - it's the age that's flawed.

No, it’s the criteria that changes. Nothing is really flawed; it’s all about context. And some context is fleeting while other context is more long-lasting.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

It also follows other rules. The eye is in complete focus. It has a catch light so it's not dead.

You are looking for rules—or let's call them photographic norms—after the fact, in order to make sense of the photo, based on your expectations about what makes a photo make sense. You don't actually know Friedlander was following rules, because you don't know what he thinks about rules. To "follow rules" means Intentionally, consciously follow rules. You have to have the intent of following the rule. It can't just happen by chance. But what we do know about Friedlander is that he sees photography as a very instinctive reaction, one in which rules don't play (or don't seem to play) any part at all—neither intentionally following nor intentionally not following.

Not saying Friedlander doesn't have personal strategies. Use of a wide-angle lens is one. Use of mirrors is another. But these aren't rules.

 

[Don_ih]

Nothing is really flawed; it’s all about context.

I won't get into that - it's dull. "Context" is too complex a notion to be discussed here. I know people think it's simple and straightforward, but they're wrong....

 

[BrianShaw]

I won't get into that - it's dull. "Context" is too complex a notion to be discussed here. I know people think it's simple and straightforward, but they're wrong....

Complex and contentious, but not dull. It’s a fact of life.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

it's the age that's flawed

Maybe, but the flaws of Romanticism—my favorite period—are themself beautiful.