The Dark Art of Composition

MikeL said:
Stewart, thanks for presenting all this. Looking forward to more thoughts.


Side note/not so deep question of the day: Does a narcissist recognize their own narcissism?
Click to expand...
Its related to relational database You will have to read RDMS to understand this
 
Oh Two said:
The famous optical illusion presented displaying outward and inward arrows is a cultural phenomenon.

Waaaaay back when I was presenting my Master's thesis in Art, my subject was the psychology of art. One of the curiosities I researched was the Famous Illusion.

It seems tribal folks in Africa were never fooled by the illusion. Why? because they lived in grass huts or at least structures that were round and did not have 90 degree corners to look into.

While it is convenient to assume optical illusions are nature and not nurture, quite the opposite is fact. Most optical illusions are learned indirectly from our environment, or better, interpreting and navigating our environment from a very young age.
Click to expand...

That’s interesting, is the research on the web?

There is an Open University psychology module (on cognitive reality iirc) that runs tests on very young, pre-verbalising, children that suggest the opposite.

The same source also demonstrates a rudimentary response to perspective in laboratory rats, which is why I tend to favour the view that some responses are cultural and others inherited. That particular effect may well fall on the cultural side of the line however.

The theory based paintings on your website are very impressive
 
MikeL said:
Stewart, thanks for presenting all this. Looking forward to more thoughts.


Side note/not so deep question of the day: Does a narcissist recognize their own narcissism?
Click to expand...

You’re welcomed, Mike …

I’ll admit to a wee bit of an ego, but narcissist? you’ve clearly not seen my reflection sir
 
Last edited:
Steward, thanks for posting. This was one of the best threads on any forum I ever visited. Great stuff. (And bloody funny, indeed).

Bojan
 
Hey Al!!! Thanks for the explanation re color!
You've really condensed it--
Happy Thanksgiving to you, too...
Paul
 
Om the bright side those of us who always bathe religiously on the fifteenth and thirtieth of every month will soon be performing the ceremony once more, no longer part of the Great Unwashed..
 
In the end it comes down to being able to produce images that satisfy YOU. If others don't like them then THEY have the problem. The challenge only comes with getting to the point where you really don't care what they like or how they think. Of course if you're planning on making a living with it you might have a problem, and it's a lot easier to learn how to work within the confines of "the rules" than it is to educate the Great Unwashed.

I just got back from a Thangsgiving Day parade where I shot two 24 exposure rolls of cheap CVS color with a 15mm lens on my Bessa L, and I'm in most all of the pictures. I used the finder as a convenient place to curl my finger around, steadying the camera. I'm sure that I'll have at least half a dozen images with great composition, uncropped.

I even flirted with some of the cute young grandmothers and got two invites to dinner tonight!
 
Perception as composition?

Perception as composition?

Sparrow said:
That’s interesting, is the research on the web?

There is an Open University psychology module (on cognitive reality iirc) that runs tests on very young, pre-verbalising, children that suggest the opposite.

The same source also demonstrates a rudimentary response to perspective in laboratory rats, which is why I tend to favour the view that some responses are cultural and others inherited. That particular effect may well fall on the cultural side of the line however.

The theory based paintings on your website are very impressive
Click to expand...

I think the issue is not that perceptive is learned, it is not, the point is that optical illusions are learned, a sort of non sequitur with what is inborn if you will. The capacity to convey/interpret three dimensions on two is learned.

Practical artistic perspective is usually assigned to Uccello in the Renaissance.

The cross-pointing arrow illusion is not directly linked to perspective, but rather from looking up at squared buildings from either inside or outside. The corners are the arrows in the illusion. Depth perception is far more complicated than that. For example, many predatory birds do not have eyes placed straight ahead and side by side in order to have the benefit of stereo vision; the same applies to squids, fish and other creatures that live in a totally 3D world without the reference points that a creature ground bound would have. How do they see perspective or depth? What is their rangefinder?

This is for another discussion.

My studies were regarding the natural perception of composition. Why is the Golden Mean so compelling? Can out of balanced compositions be made to ‘feel comfortable’. My father in law would never buy an automobile with a badge or emblem that was not centered.

Most of the discussion presented in this thread has gone a tad bit off point. The imperative of style is a genuine issue, but from my perspective (my pun), compositional elements have changed very little if not at all from the beginning of time to the present. If you want to talk poetic elements, the hierarchy of creativity, themes, styles and other topics that apply to all art forms rather than the tyranny of composition, then we are avoiding the real issues at hand.
 
Jeicob said:
One motive through history :cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2P23W02V6wo&fmt=18
Click to expand...

I agree it is a prime motivator, probably from ancient times

4137130728_c81ba6a07d_o.jpg


it influenced some of my early stuff
 
Sparrow said:
Part 2) The rule of thirds
So in theory any arrangement of elements that approximates to those points, people will tend to be intrested in and keep their attention.

3696850909_b423ea2bdc_o.jpg
Click to expand...


Is this why sometimes adding a frame to an image often helps to make the initial image more interesting?
..
 
the edge of the frame, or mount just helps keep the eye in the frame, we are very sensitive it straight lines particularly horizontal and vertical ones, so yes it’s probably a similar thing, stuff always seem to look better in a frame anyway.
 
Oh Two said:
I think the issue is not that perceptive is learned, it is not, the point is that optical illusions are learned, a sort of non sequitur with what is inborn if you will. The capacity to convey/interpret three dimensions on two is learned.

Practical artistic perspective is usually assigned to Uccello in the Renaissance.

The cross-pointing arrow illusion is not directly linked to perspective, but rather from looking up at squared buildings from either inside or outside. The corners are the arrows in the illusion. Depth perception is far more complicated than that. For example, many predatory birds do not have eyes placed straight ahead and side by side in order to have the benefit of stereo vision; the same applies to squids, fish and other creatures that live in a totally 3D world without the reference points that a creature ground bound would have. How do they see perspective or depth? What is their rangefinder?

This is for another discussion.

My studies were regarding the natural perception of composition. Why is the Golden Mean so compelling? Can out of balanced compositions be made to ‘feel comfortable’. My father in law would never buy an automobile with a badge or emblem that was not centered.

Most of the discussion presented in this thread has gone a tad bit off point. The imperative of style is a genuine issue, but from my perspective (my pun), compositional elements have changed very little if not at all from the beginning of time to the present. If you want to talk poetic elements, the hierarchy of creativity, themes, styles and other topics that apply to all art forms rather than the tyranny of composition, then we are avoiding the real issues at hand.
Click to expand...

I think we are making the same point in two ways I’m trying to make a distinction between that bit of perception we have no choice about, either born with or condemned to learn and that bit which is cultural, you probably got the right words with the imperative of style.

My contention is that it is easier to be creative if one understands what effect the former has on the latter, and easier to understand the latter if one knows it’s history.

I believe I credited the Classical Greeks with the discovery/invention of perspective; the “Illusionistic or architectural Style” of wall painting was popular in first century Rome and I believe Pliny references earlier Greek stuff (but don’t quote me on that). Uccello was late Gothic and I would have gone for “developing the work of others” rather than assigning the invention of it to him.

the squid thing got me thinking about texture, if I move the layer with the fish on about a bit it works better, not so good as a static image.


 
Last edited:
just a thought:

I wonder how all these rules and principles apply to images that aren't cropped as a square or rectangle, which are quite unnqturql shapes. ( like paintings on a Greek vase, or tattoos, or graffity, cave paintings )

Has there ever been photography that wasn't rectangular ( or square ) ?

The natural 'frame' our eyes provide is more of an oval I think. We are so used to seeing things in a rectangular frame ( most paintings, photographs, television, websites, movies, magazines ) mostly because these shapes are convenient in production and because of standardisation ( imagine baking square cookies VS round cookies: cutting out round cookies produces a lot more waste ).

If the image is close enough you're less aware of the borders, you're eyes fade/blur out the edges. e.g. sitting on the front row in a movie, viewmaster / images.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top