The Diagonal Method (of composition)
Sunday, May 25th, 2008
The rule of thirds on steriods.
In my experience with visual design and eyeing a composition, one can do it by one’s gut feeling (based on experience) or one can think of learned rules (things that groups of people agree upon) and use those rules as an overlay. What’s interesting is that people who seem to have an “eye” for photographic composition (gut feeling types) seem to compose according to the rules without even knowing about the rules. This may give some strength to the idea that the rules are based on some agreed upon aesthetic or, there are just a bunch of people who are born with “good” taste and the rest of us have to use a book to figure out how to mimic it.
The thing that always bothered me about the golden section, fibonacci sequences and the rule of thirds is it seems like a mathematical rationalization for something that is by and large learned. I mean, I’ve never seen any behavioral research into children responding to this stuff, only adults who are looking for a rationalization to hang an aesthetic on.
No matter what, this is an interesting read.
[via Dale Allyn]
Richard, you are presenting some interesting thoughts here. For example the idea that these rules are intended to describe innate aesthetic concepts retrospectively. On the other hand I have seen very good photos which are visually interesting because the photographer deliberately broke with those rules. For instance often a tilted horizon just looks wrong but there are photos where it works really well. The same applies to the suggestion that one should place an object slightly off-centre. Though there are instances where a central position works without looking boring or too symmetrical.
Andreas: Schools of thought on this might be:
Follow the rules, they’re what most people agree on.
Learn the rules so you can break them.
Don’t learn any rules, just follow your eye and gut and make compositions as you see them in the world.
In the music world some of the best improvisers are classically trained.
Picasso certainly knew how to draw and paint “realistically” and did so before he started moving into abstraction.
I certainly think it’s useful to have a big picture (pun intended) of all of this stuff: groups using “science” to justify composition, and pure improvisation and everything in between.
But, like photographers getting caught up in the social part of flickr and losing their bearings by adjusting how they make photographs to stoke popularity, it’s useful to consider rules but not be bound to them thinking a photograph that breaks them isn’t good simply because it breaks them.
It would seem to me that some experimentation is in order. However, I don’t have the energy to do it. Or, better yet, maybe someone already has.
As far as center/off center: sometimes when too much care has been taken one way or another in this regard it looks (to me) forced or over studied. That’s a matter of taste (here we go again) but I like things a bit looser, more “snapshotty” even though some of my photographer doesn’t reflect that (like the tree on grass shot up on the front page of my site now).
Human brains, can’t live without them but man, they are so fickle. We must share genes with cats.
Richard, thank you so much for your thought-provoking reply. Your uttering some very interesting points. Especially your reference to classically trained painters like Picasso, who moved away from the established rules, raises this question: do rules restrict creativity and development? There are instances where schools became too dogmatic. On the other hand the constraints of rules promoted deliberate breaches. Thus they might foster creativity, if one does not regard them as binding.
In this regard it was interesting that you mentioned Flickr as an example for impacting a photographer’s artistic development. I am actively using Flickr for about two months. It is quite an interesting community project, especially with regard to gaining inspiration and exchanging ideas with like-minded people for there is such a wide range of characters and minds assembled in this network. I also like the pride that the community takes in impacting the Flickr’s future development (i.e. resisting certain technical implementations like videos, etc.). However I also noticed that some photographers are emulating the style of a popular model. Fortunately I have not encountered this very often and I have seen examples where a Flickr user experimented with a specific style for a few months but then moved on to a very different look that I could not identify as a specific signature style. Though I can see how the populace’s taste can be a very powerful filter.
Maybe not all of these decisions, especially the more emotionally based ones are occurring in one’s brain. Need to find that reference… I recently read an article on a researcher who studies the concept of the “gut feeling”. Not all of it can be rationally explained. Hence I would prefer to share genes with pug dogs. ;-)
Andreas: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with classical training, or, in learning by emulating other artists and photographers. The problems arise when one gets bound in whatever method and rationalization one is using such that one builds a philosophy cutting all other methods unlike one’s own down.
So, is it useful to read up on all of the thinking behind the golden rule, rule of thirds, and other attempts to build a scientific rationalization for composition? Sure, it is. But, if one looks at all composition through this lens, it seems rather limiting to me.