Rules of composition: there to be broken?

[hzb]

I'm out of town and away from my computer files at the moment, filling in some downtime looking at DPR.

But your own flickr collection shows some very nice examples.

 

[Agiledogs]

Degas' painting has the power of an open composition (the horse is cut off by the frame). This engages the viewer to fill in the details and references there is a world outside of the picture frame. It's a technique often used in far eastern aesthetics and one I like to use myself. Another is layering of a various subjects in a scene to create depth. Note the Impressionist painters were very influenced by Japanese art.

There is a Degas exhibition currently on in Melbourne (Australia) - the man was a genius at composition.

In looking at the Degas, I am not so bothered by the pole as much as I am cutting off the lead horse's backside. I kind of feel the same about portraits where body parts are cut off.

 

[hzb]

In looking at the Degas, I am not so bothered by the pole as much as I am cutting off the lead horse's backside. I kind of feel the same about portraits where body parts are cut off.

I understand what you're getting at. "Closed" compositions where the subject is fully included within the frame are satisfying (I can't come up with a better word and am not intending anything negative by this). Whereas "open" framing gives a sense of tension, incompleteness. It has to be done very carefully not be irritating. For you, Degas didn't succeed.

 

[richj20]

Firstly, as ggbutcher points out, they are not rules at all but an understanding how we see and respond to visual stimuli.

Secondly, you are not judging the image by what Degas was trying to achieve, but your own understanding of composition. You are trying to fit it inside the logic that you understand and clearly it doesn't fit. So perhaps we should revise the logic, which you are attempting to do here with this post.

A lot of Degas' paintings have a deliberate 'random' feel to them. This is not easy to achieve and is really a skill in hiding the real composition and rhythm from the viewer's eyes. In this painting he takes an uninteresting moment before the race, and not an action packed moment during a race. In it he manages to make an interesting shot where you get the feeling of the movement and power of the horses before the start.

And he makes it look like a snapshot, a captured moment in time. Yet this is a considered and composed painting and not a snapshot taken with a camera. You can't take a snapshot with a painting.

So look at how he achieves it rather than the so called 'rules'.

Perspective is achieved. There is a feeling of depth here, not only in the suggestion between the two poles but with the riders and their horses. Look also at the way the colour and contrast recedes with this perceived distance, composition is not all about lines. See also the rhythm between the spacing of the far pole, the riders and the near horses head. The horse kicking off in the middle is almost propelling the nearer rider forward.

I agree with most of that.

One big advantage that the painter has over the photographer is that of being able to choose everything about the composition and think about it at leisure. The photographer has to accept what is in front of him (to some extent, at least, unless the whole image is composed in photoshop).

Very true.


En plein air et la photographie

- Richard

--

http://www.rsjphoto.net

 

[Mike CH]

I think it would serve OP to understand composition before claiming that it's there to be broken or otherwise. The examples and comments given by OP are contradictory of one another.

If anything, this thread serves as an example of how something that has been pinned down, observed, studied and taught for generations can still be misunderstood.

Problem is, when you look at some of the analyses of successful images, you start noticing that the composition and the rules it follows are rather arbitrary. You will notice that the points and elements in the image which are claimed to follow rule-of-thirds, golden-ratop, etc actually don't. They are often off by a smaller or larger amount making it difficult to tell whether it was RoT or GR being followed. And then there are the other significant elements of the image which are nowhere near any of the compositional hotspots. Huh?

This is not to say that there is no value in the compositional rules. They are just hardly ever followed exactly, and many times seem to be employed as retroactive means of explaining an image, when 5 other explanations could be just as valid...

Regards, Mike

 

[simon2001]

I think it would serve OP to understand composition before claiming that it's there to be broken or otherwise. The examples and comments given by OP are contradictory of one another.

If anything, this thread serves as an example of how something that has been pinned down, observed, studied and taught for generations can still be misunderstood.

Problem is, when you look at some of the analyses of successful images, you start noticing that the composition and the rules it follows are rather arbitrary. You will notice that the points and elements in the image which are claimed to follow rule-of-thirds, golden-ratop, etc actually don't. They are often off by a smaller or larger amount making it difficult to tell whether it was RoT or GR being followed. And then there are the other significant elements of the image which are nowhere near any of the compositional hotspots. Huh?

This is not to say that there is no value in the compositional rules. They are just hardly ever followed exactly, and many times seem to be employed as retroactive means of explaining an image, when 5 other explanations could be just as valid...

Regards, Mike

 

[BG454]

[No message]

 

[Tom Axford]

I presume that by "guidelines", you mean something like "rules that can be taken as a starting point, but may often be broken or ignored", in which case I think you are agreeing with me.

 

[Mike CH]

I presume that by "guidelines", you mean something like "rules that can be taken as a starting point, but may often be broken or ignored", in which case I think you are agreeing with me.

I think he is paraphrasing Pirates of the Caribbean

Regards, Mike

 

[Tom Axford]

I presume that by "guidelines", you mean something like "rules that can be taken as a starting point, but may often be broken or ignored", in which case I think you are agreeing with me.

I think he is paraphrasing Pirates of the Caribbean

Oh! Well, I suppose you can learn composition from popular films as well as art galleries!

 

[D Cox]

Degas' painting has the power of an open composition (the horse is cut off by the frame). This engages the viewer to fill in the details and references there is a world outside of the picture frame. It's a technique often used in far eastern aesthetics and one I like to use myself. Another is layering of a various subjects in a scene to create depth. Note the Impressionist painters were very influenced by Japanese art.

There is a Degas exhibition currently on in Melbourne (Australia) - the man was a genius at composition.

In looking at the Degas, I am not so bothered by the pole as much as I am cutting off the lead horse's backside. I kind of feel the same about portraits where body parts are cut off.

That is at least 90% of portraits.

 

[D Cox]

I presume that by "guidelines", you mean something like "rules that can be taken as a starting point, but may often be broken or ignored", in which case I think you are agreeing with me.

I think he is paraphrasing Pirates of the Caribbean

Oh! Well, I suppose you can learn composition from popular films as well as art galleries!

The better directors of photography for films take great care over composition, as well as lighting. You can find many very striking still images if you pause famous films.

 

[D Cox]

In looking at the Degas, I am not so bothered by the pole as much as I am cutting off the lead horse's backside. I kind of feel the same about portraits where body parts are cut off.

I understand what you're getting at. "Closed" compositions where the subject is fully included within the frame are satisfying (I can't come up with a better word and am not intending anything negative by this). Whereas "open" framing gives a sense of tension, incompleteness. It has to be done very carefully not be irritating. For you, Degas didn't succeed.

I think "safe" is the word, rather than "satisfying".

 

[Mike CH]

I presume that by "guidelines", you mean something like "rules that can be taken as a starting point, but may often be broken or ignored", in which case I think you are agreeing with me.

I think he is paraphrasing Pirates of the Caribbean

Oh! Well, I suppose you can learn composition from popular films as well as art galleries!

More like guidelines, actually...

Regards, Mike

 

[BG454]

I presume that by "guidelines", you mean something like "rules that can be taken as a starting point, but may often be broken or ignored", in which case I think you are agreeing with me.

I think he is paraphrasing Pirates of the Caribbean

Correct on both counts!

 

[braysghost]

Arr Matey, have you seen the Bilge rat that stole me Bung hole from our Grog!

 

[Mike CH]

Arr Matey, have you seen the Bilge rat that stole me Bung hole from our Grog!

Normally, I'd say, to err is human, and to arr is pirate.

In your case, it might be the other way around ;-)

Regards, Mike

 

[braysghost]

Arr Matey, have you seen the Bilge rat that stole me Bung hole from our Grog!

Normally, I'd say, to err is human, and to arr is pirate.

In your case, it might be the other way around ;-)

Regards, Mike

--
Wait and see...
I hardly ever speak for anybody but myself. In the cases where I do mean to speak generally the statements are likely to be marked as such.

Aye pirate, have you seen the Scoundrel?

 

[Mike CH]

Arr Matey, have you seen the Bilge rat that stole me Bung hole from our Grog!

Normally, I'd say, to err is human, and to arr is pirate.

In your case, it might be the other way around ;-)

Regards, Mike

 

[braysghost]

Arr Matey, have you seen the Bilge rat that stole me Bung hole from our Grog!

Normally, I'd say, to err is human, and to arr is pirate.

In your case, it might be the other way around ;-)

Regards, Mike

--
Wait and see...
I hardly ever speak for anybody but myself. In the cases where I do mean to speak generally the statements are likely to be marked as such.

Aye pirate, have you seen the Scoundrel?

Not answering that question before you explain how to abscond with a hole? ;-)

By plugging it?

Regards, Mike

--
Wait and see...
I hardly ever speak for anybody but myself. In the cases where I do mean to speak generally the statements are likely to be marked as such.

Nay, my bung hole is exit only. Need to get me wine.