I suppose, regurgitating what’s in the article, that the Brandt pic is “breaking” the rules with purpose. It’s appropriate for the subject while also making an arresting image.
All pretty pictures risk tipping over into kitsch
The method of the video is fine. It just fails to explain the most important part. That composition is a language and you use language to convey something. Which composition is good depends on what the image is conveying*.
But that’s an awful picture. The “pretty girl” is a person and to create that truly stunning image personality and situation has to be brought into the frame in a combined effort of photographer and subject.
/* what is being conveyed doesn’t have to be something fully known or possible to verbally articulate by the artist.
My answer would be: start from the goal. What is the goal of the image? What do I want it to say? What feeling do I want to evoke?
Practical exercise: take a subject, eg a pretty girl in a setting. Make an image that is pretty. Make another that is bleak. Consider the results (and results from fellow-students). What could we change to make the image prettier or bleaker? Re-shoot.
I wouldn’t say that Brandt was breaking rules. Rather, he was following a different set of rules.
1 Like
I’m going to use this and your comment about classic Hollywood as an excuse to post one of my favourite scene analyses, of Kurosawa’s High and Low. The image is constructed, multiple times in the same shot, to create a subliminal emotional response in the viewer reinforcing the story.
1 Like
Yes, Brandt used his composition to let his portrait of Bacon evoke uneasiness. On the other hand, Bacon himself often used “standard” rules of composition without producing “pretty” pictures. Take a look at “Triptych 1986-7” for example.
How are they standard rules of composition? I’m probably missing something
I meant rules as explained in the video linked above, in contrast to
Yes, I just didn’t really see any rules in the Bacon images. I mean the Truman body shape is standard but they’re on abstracted flat surfaces unless I’m looking at the wrong paintings
Rule of thirds (triptych, bottom horizontal line in left and right image), use of empty space, framing of objects, points of interest, leading lines, rule of odds …
Thanks
I agree with this sentiment. I love the landscapes of Constable and and his paintings take you on a journey through the landscape. But the reality is that he has carefully crafted his composition to include many points of interest. By the using of leading lines he takes you from first one to another. His work is not haphazard and random.
I 100% agree with this sentiment and I am surprised my praise for this video stirred such a conversation. But conversation is good and hearing diversified and respectful opinions here is why I frequent the forum.
2 Likes
No doubt, but there’s a reason Peter Kennard used the Haywain for his anti-nuke agitprop.
EDIT: It’s ironic, imv, that photography helped send painting on a century long spiral of investigation and experimentation on the meaning of representation and art, while here we are making reference to centuries old oil paintings as guides to our work.
Complexity doesn’t mean random. You still have to make good images.
I occasionally comment in threads like these to open up discussions that I think are at risk of over simplifying or missing important points. I’m surprised it’s brings what seems to be a bit of unease.
Why are you surprised about this? Other forum participants may find your contributions too one-sided and dogmatic. Take your first post, for example:
If you stir up controversy, you have to expect contradiction. I’m just surprised that this little video sparked such fundamental discussions.
1 Like
The surprising thing is to be uncomfortable when posts or contributions spark “fundamental discussions”. Because it’s the best possibly outcome of any contribution made anywhere, in any form by anyone.
1 Like
I am not sure how you came to the conclusion of being at “unease” or being “uncomfortable” of other posters here. I am neither. Don’t deduce the emotional state of humans by their counterarguments.
Fundamental discussions are positive when they are conducted constructively and are an enrichment for the participants. Often, however, they are simply an exchange of blows. I was just surprised that such a simple video leads to so serious a discussion. In my opinion, it is not at all suitable for this because it hardly makes any profound statements that could be questioned, but merely gives a nice introduction to the basics of composition.
But you have convinced me. I’m also going to discuss the topic of rules for composition in more detail.
1 Like
On the fundamental discussion:
I am convinced that many rules of composition in painting and photography are based on the physiological principles of the senses. These may be supplemented by cultural influences and individual experiences. But a large part of the rules are probably based on universal principles of human perception.
For example, the human brain quickly recognizes symmetrical structures because organisms (enemies, prey) are often characterized by them and can thus be easily distinguished from their inanimate surroundings. This is why we find symmetrical structures “interesting”. The same applies to repetitive patterns that allow us to bring order to chaos. This is why we also prefer simple (but not too simple) compositions, because the full complexity of the environment cannot be grasped by us, and we are therefore always dependent on reduction.
If “rules” such as symmetry, parallelism, order, simplicity or high contrast are applied, a picture appears “coherent”. By breaking the rules, however, you can also deliberately create a feeling of inconsistency.
But I would like to strongly disagree with the opinion expressed several times in this discussion that these “rules” only create pretty or even kitschy pictures. Artists use such “rules” in general, both to achieve direct aesthetic effects or, on the contrary, to create an aesthetic of unease.
1 Like
Just look at many of the paintings from the old (or not so old) masters like Vermeer or Turner (both cited in the video, btw)
1 Like
Try looking at the tone of those “sparks”. For me, you come across as dogmatic and aggressive (not just here, also in other threads). A quoting style that only adresses part of an issue doesn’t help either.
But luckily this forum has a simple solution.
1 Like
Muting this thread now. Thanks everyone