Another attempt... C&C please

[c.cloudwalker]

Actually there are NO rules to art...

Although I agree 100% with this, there are guidelines which were figured out over hundreds of years by artists and viewers/critics. If you want to reinvent the wheel that's fine but telling others to do so is not the best way to be a teacher.

It would be similar to handing the car keys to your kid and say: go learn. There are no rules for the art of driving either as every combination of car/tires/road conditions will result in a different situation. However there are guidelines and it is a lot less painful to learn about those guidelines that to learn the art of driving by crashing into trees or buildings or ...

Learning the guidelines is a must even if only to ignore them later.

 

[eriqalan]

This really isn't the place for debate - it you want to debate start your own thread

Obviously you don't get the concept; the rules, evakluations are all about art criticism, the critic struggles to find some excuse for their position so they come up with notions like "rule-of-thirds" (actually there is more than one - one says use the lines at 1/3 down; 2/3 down, 1/3 across, 2/3 across; another says use only the intersections of the lines, another says just keep the subject off-center - in fact this is a derivation of the "golden ratio" (which was actually related to gravity and building - the pyramids, parthenon etc. were related to the "golden ratio" as what they structure could support due to gravity)

In other words using math to justify ... math

Most people really do not examine their views to see where they come from and for years, centuries critics and teachers have peddled these "rules" of art as it was all they had; they could not understand beauty is relative and the purpose of art is to communicate your personal perception of beauty - to remark "this is beautiful"

Your comment about music indicates part of the error - the notes can be mathematically attained, putting them into a tune, deciding what instruments would harmonize, composing harmonies, going to the orchestral level all are beyond the machines "ken"; understanding

Again this is not a debate; if you want a debate start your own thread -- see using the internet does have it's rules and you have violated them

 

[eriqalan]

These "guidelines" actually related to gravity - how much strength materials have to hold a roof against gravity - and were twisted by the less "literate" to have some kind of judgment on art

There is no right or wrong way in art

There is no comparison to a kid and a car (although a comparison can be made to a kid and a camera but we do give kids cameras and say "go learn" so the syllogism is false) There actually ARE rules for driving as any race car team could tell you - it is physics and the only variable is other cars. Failure in Art is not like crashing into trees; it is like missing the exit so you take the next one and explore your way back

There are no guidelines to art

Photography has been called the art of light and shadow and there is a mechanical way to taking the picture, Every image presents it's own "rules" (physics of light) - but what makes a good picture is art - what the image says to you. Partially this is emotion - and only an idiot would claim there are rules to emotions

There may be ideas, concepts true to all story telling (for example in writing we say "show, don't tell" as showing involves the reader - similarly we say "every picture tells a story, don't it?" as the value of a photo is whether it communicates well)

I love the quote - it could also mean every child is an artist, unspoiled by people telling what he "should do, what the "rules" are, uncorrupted by other people's perspectives and able to view all objectively. The "rules" are themselves a corruption of art - the idea that there are rules is a corruption of art. A child is innocent of that corruption the problem is how to remain innocent as you "grow up".

This is a good if misguided comment and I hope I showed you where it is misguided - you are taking assumptions that if people are getting paid to do something it must have some value - and this is false. Essentially these "rules" are a con game - they become important because people see them as important because they were told they were important - i.e. self important; a con game. Which walnut shell is the peanut under?

This board is not a proper one for debate - if you want to debate start either your own thread or a new topic; this is my opinion just as you have your own but debating in a thread like this does not work; is improper use of the forum; internet

 

[burstintoflame81]

This really isn't the place for debate - it you want to debate start your own thread

Obviously you don't get the concept; the rules, evakluations are all about art criticism, the critic struggles to find some excuse for their position so they come up with notions like "rule-of-thirds" (actually there is more than one - one says use the lines at 1/3 down; 2/3 down, 1/3 across, 2/3 across; another says use only the intersections of the lines, another says just keep the subject off-center - in fact this is a derivation of the "golden ratio" (which was actually related to gravity and building - the pyramids, parthenon etc. were related to the "golden ratio" as what they structure could support due to gravity)

In other words using math to justify ... math

Most people really do not examine their views to see where they come from and for years, centuries critics and teachers have peddled these "rules" of art as it was all they had; they could not understand beauty is relative and the purpose of art is to communicate your personal perception of beauty - to remark "this is beautiful"

Your comment about music indicates part of the error - the notes can be mathematically attained, putting them into a tune, deciding what instruments would harmonize, composing harmonies, going to the orchestral level all are beyond the machines "ken"; understanding

Again this is not a debate; if you want a debate start your own thread -- see using the internet does have it's rules and you have violated them

First off, you say this is not a place for debate as if you are taking the high road, and then go off on a tangent again. The rule of thirds was created because it has shown to be a good tool and a good way to lead a persons eye in a photograph. Surely other things can do the same ( leading lines, bright spots, colors that jump out ) so it isn't a strict rule. But a good starting point that helps people make sense of what they are trying to do.

Also, clearly it is you that is confused about music. Harmonies, scales, octaves. All mathematical. Perhaps you are confused about what mathematics encompasses. They have created instruments run by machines that can jam and improvise with a live jazz band. The only thing that would be needed is randomness to create a song that hasn't been created yet. However, with algorithms a computer can be almost as close to random as a human being can be. ( this however is all moot point and I agree that this debate doesn't belong here so I will end it here. )

The part of the debate that does, is the part of photography. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on here, but that doesn't mean we all have to sit back and watch you steer a newbie in a confusing direction. Sure he can just improv everything, but giving him a concise starting point to formulate his own understand of things would be much more useful and help foster his understanding of the entire medium of photography. I did not mean to attack your viewpoint, so I apologize if you take offense to me disagreeing with you, but we both have the right to voice our opinions.

 

[Arch]

As much as I agree with you Burstin', can we please take this to another thread rather than hijack this one.

Thanks.

 

[eriqalan]

"They are good techniques to learn" - let's see instead of learning to draw people into the image, involve them with the suibject you learn the rule of thirds or diagonals or leading lines or s curves or .....

There are 3 kinds of learning

The first is rote - brute force memorization (following "rules" which works well in Math)

The next level up is "image manipulation" - people who can talk the talk without ever understanding the subject

The highest level is concept learning - learning the underlying concept and applying that learning in different situations.

Following the rules is like a car stuck in first gear. If first grade rote-learning is the best you can do I feel sorry for you; I do not tell my students how to see (art criticism) but how to communicate their vision (art)

There is a difference

 

[burstintoflame81]

:lmao:

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

:lmao:

Oh, my...