Composition : Rule of thirds or Golden Rule

[Derrel]

An interesting read on the Golden Ratio Golden Ratio Myth, Math and Misunderstanding (for Debunkers)

From the comments in that web-article, comes this (to me) fascinating high-speed video clip:

 

[Derrel]

This is akin to the ISO argument.

The rules regardless of how they originated has been used for thousands of years.
The Golden Spiral is also based on prime numbers.
The use in art dates back much further than the Roman or even Greek era, but the terminology itself though may be found in various forms, follows rules that even the ancient Chinese followed.

I understand that there are those who may disagree but here is the reality.

Art, architecture, the "rules of thirds" the Golden circle, golden triangle etc. are in fact concepts long studied in multiple disciplines, including art and even in old and modern medicine.

When I studied much of these concepts in art class, the story from the early 1970's and NOT an internet meme, the books I read were published in the 1960's, and have found many example of such rules in books dating back to the 1920's saying much the same. (I use to hang out in several old book stores...)

But like the ISO argument, this is really an argument over semantics.

Honestly, our society was built upon these concepts and regardless of what anyone says about such, I find the subject matter highly relevant.

Now. More to the question:

Study books from the Moorish period, The Ten Books of Architecture, REAL books on Fung Shue (not the New Age California BS,), even Newton's Principia discusses concepts on form and structure that all relate to composure both in art and structure.

Please find a grid-lines reference to "The Rule of Thirds" dated 1779-1945. Best of luck... As far as "ruleof thirds" as currently understood,it is little more than a "hack" used mostly by those who do not understand the Elements and Principles of Design, the real ones, the fundamental building blocks and concepts that the fine/visual arts are based upon.

THE idea that a "grid" determines where to best place compositional elements within a photo or painting is a facile one. Such an idea is akin to suggesting that "navigation" is best done with nothing but a compass...no clock,no speedometer/chronometer, no chart no straight edge,etc. the "rule" of thirds is a MODERN, 1960's era HACK, that has been mis-identified with a 1700;s landscape painting idea of basically the same name.

Language can fool us.

 

[smoke665]

From the comments in that web-article, comes this (to me) fascinating high-speed video clip

Thanks Derrel now I'll be staring at this video for the next hour!! LOL

 

[Derrel]

Speaking of fine art..has anybody watched any of the several YouTube videos with David Hockney, entitled Secret Knowledge?

 

[Derrel]

I like what Fred Picker, of Zone VI Studios fame said about composing a photograph:
“Point your camera at it and move back and forth if you like and when it looks right, it is right. That’s your picture, you take it.”

Picker died in 2002....before the internet had risen to prominenece, well before the invention of Facebook,Instgram, and the rise of YouTube, Wikipedia,etc.

"Fred Picker (1927-2002) was a black and white photographer who pioneered the “Zone VI” variation of the Zone System of B&W photography first perfected by Ansel Adams. Whereas Ansel exposed for the shadows and developed the negative for the high values, Fred liked to “put the highest value on Zone VIII and take the picture.” But with a corollary of “except Sometimes,” he said.Fred Picker (1927-2002) was a black and white photographer who pioneered the “Zone VI” variation of the Zone System of B&W photography first perfected by Ansel Adams. Whereas Ansel exposed for the shadows and developed the negative for the high values, Fred liked to “put the highest value on Zone VIII and take the picture.” But with a corollary of “except Sometimes,” he said.

 

[Soocom1]

This is akin to the ISO argument.

The rules regardless of how they originated has been used for thousands of years.
The Golden Spiral is also based on prime numbers.
The use in art dates back much further than the Roman or even Greek era, but the terminology itself though may be found in various forms, follows rules that even the ancient Chinese followed.

I understand that there are those who may disagree but here is the reality.

Art, architecture, the "rules of thirds" the Golden circle, golden triangle etc. are in fact concepts long studied in multiple disciplines, including art and even in old and modern medicine.

When I studied much of these concepts in art class, the story from the early 1970's and NOT an internet meme, the books I read were published in the 1960's, and have found many example of such rules in books dating back to the 1920's saying much the same. (I use to hang out in several old book stores...)

But like the ISO argument, this is really an argument over semantics.

Honestly, our society was built upon these concepts and regardless of what anyone says about such, I find the subject matter highly relevant.

Now. More to the question:

Study books from the Moorish period, The Ten Books of Architecture, REAL books on Fung Shue (not the New Age California BS,), even Newton's Principia discusses concepts on form and structure that all relate to composure both in art and structure.

Please find a grid-lines reference to "The Rule of Thirds" dated 1779-1945. Best of luck... As far as "ruleof thirds" as currently understood,it is little more than a "hack" used mostly by those who do not understand the Elements and Principles of Design, the real ones, the fundamental building blocks and concepts that the fine/visual arts are based upon.

THE idea that a "grid" determines where to best place compositional elements within a photo or painting is a facile one. Such an idea is akin to suggesting that "navigation" is best done with nothing but a compass...no clock,no speedometer/chronometer, no chart no straight edge,etc. the "rule" of thirds is a MODERN, 1960's era HACK, that has been mis-identified with a 1700;s landscape painting idea of basically the same name.

Language can fool us.

I didnt say there was.

What I said was that the mechanisms have been used.
A "grid" aspect was not what i remember.
It was a visual balance between the elements in an image. What I remember was teaching color, tone and contrast balance.
I was very young when I was first introduced to these concepts and have understood them better as a result of practice.


What I am eluding to is the fact that art composition is not wholly taught today.
Hell, try selling something on any of the self sales web sites and discover that they form it to the most basic concepts possible and any "artistic" or product attempt to post images is met with a lot of resistance from the system.
Its geared for the most basic set up possible.

 

[Derrel]

Composition in art _ is_ taught today. And it involves much more than placing elements along or at the intersection points of grid lines.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

The rules regardless of how they originated has been used for thousands of years.
The Golden Spiral is also based on prime numbers.
The use in art dates back much further than the Roman or even Greek era, but the terminology itself though may be found in various forms, follows rules that even the ancient Chinese followed.

I understand that there are those who may disagree but here is the reality.

Art, architecture, the "rules of thirds" the Golden circle, golden triangle etc. are in fact concepts long studied in multiple disciplines, including art and even in old and modern medicine.

When I studied much of these concepts in art class

I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. And I will be brutal and frank here, and though I wish to upset no-one it is often the case that sometimes you have to point out the ridiculous in order to progress...

I can destroy your theory in three simple line drawings:

So where is the progression in the ROT? Where is the moment, the dynamics? How does it make you feel, how does it access your memory, experience and emotion? Where is the *expressive line*?

It is simple left brain thought. Trying to force art which is, in it's simplest form, an understanding of what it means to be human to conform to the logic of geometry, a logic we can understand in favour of the *art* we don't. When we start to learn photography we begin with the mechanics of the camera and exposure. We progress to the geometry and maths of the rectangle with simple *rules* and we think we know it all. But we are still firmly in the *left brain* and some never leave it.

Then we begin to learn about colour. And we also begin to learn that images are not ruled by absolutes and that human thought and emotion is actually about the abstract. We begin to see the contradictions, the abstract connections and progressions. And most of all we realise just how far off base all this talk of the *ROT* and *leading lines* really is...

It's what you learn in art class...

 

[Soocom1]

The rules regardless of how they originated has been used for thousands of years.
The Golden Spiral is also based on prime numbers.
The use in art dates back much further than the Roman or even Greek era, but the terminology itself though may be found in various forms, follows rules that even the ancient Chinese followed.

I understand that there are those who may disagree but here is the reality.

Art, architecture, the "rules of thirds" the Golden circle, golden triangle etc. are in fact concepts long studied in multiple disciplines, including art and even in old and modern medicine.

When I studied much of these concepts in art class

I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. And I will be brutal and frank here, and though I wish to upset no-one it is often the case that sometimes you have to point out the ridiculous in order to progress...

I can destroy your theory in three simple line drawings:

View attachment 171908
View attachment 171909
View attachment 171910

So where is the progression in the ROT? Where is the moment, the dynamics? How does it make you feel, how does it access your memory, experience and emotion? Where is the *expressive line*?

It is simple left brain thought. Trying to force art which is, in it's simplest form, an understanding of what it means to be human to conform to the logic of geometry, a logic we can understand in favour of the *art* we don't. When we start to learn photography we begin with the mechanics of the camera and exposure. We progress to the geometry and maths of the rectangle with simple *rules* and we think we know it all. But we are still firmly in the *left brain* and some never leave it.

Then we begin to learn about colour. And we also begin to learn that images are not ruled by absolutes and that human thought and emotion is actually about the abstract. We begin to see the contradictions, the abstract connections and progressions. And most of all we realise just how far off base all this talk of the *ROT* and *leading lines* really is...

It's what you learn in art class...

with respect to you, and I truely do not know your experiance, but what your saying is osmething I have had nearly 45 years of exposuder to that doest wash with the absolutest aspect.
Sorry, but Ill believe what I wish to.


Ill leave it at that.

 

[Overread]

I'm pretty sure the whole left/right brain thing was mostly beaten to death and was mostly just a school theory that mostly helped teachers balance students between the arts and science subjects. I think it was aided by a general reduction in the quality of art teachers and the teaching of art as a subject which resulted in it being a subject where "natural talent" became more and more a thing until now many consider art to be this mysterious and magical subject where you have to "be born with it" and where the elements of creation and composition cannot be learned nor taught. This is despite the fact that there clearly are mechanics behind it and that many people can, indeed, learn art without any natural talent.


Composition is also a complex subject because the "rule of thirds" and the "golden circle" are only a handful of many theories. Furthermore few works of art use only one theory, they might well utilize multiple in conjunction, weighting the creation more toward some than others. In my view each theory (no matter how old or new) is a tool in the bag. You study it, you gain a level of understanding of how and why it works and what its looking for and put it together with the others you know. Each photo then becomes a case of weighting the theories against each other and using what you know an what you want to create to balance them out to the final photo.


Sometimes its really simple - you shoot wide and you get the birds eye in the viewfinder and you get it sharp and that's the most important theory at that fraction of a moment. Later on you might use the wide shot to crop in closer, placing the eye along a line for rule of thirds, or at an intersection with the golden circle or perhaps line it up to the leading line of the animals flight path etc.... Ergo again you're using different theories for different elements and weighting them against each other.



The danger is that rule of thirds is the most common theory and that it gets repeated so often some come to use it as a continual singular crutch to fall back on. Ergo it becomes a photographers default to the point where they find it hard to compose without it.
Note that no matter the age of the theory its clear that it works on some level otherwise it would not reach a level of use that it does today. Also sometimes its good to have a general theory to fall back on when you might not have any great creative inspiration behind a photo. When you just want that good old simple single rule that's easy to use to just give you some composition when you can't think of anything else.



I think its dangerous to start jumping on fake/myth bandwaggons. Instead simply view each theory as tool that has its place. Practice, study, practice and experience and your own creative desires will steady give you a nice selection of these tools to work with.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

The golden rule often referred to a the golden mean in muzzle loading rifle circles is often found in the snail like curlicues carved, or inlet into 18th and 19th century firearms. It is just one of the many rules of thumb use to establish proportions within the piece. It also has a presence it many acoustic instruments along with other well established measurements.

So too the rule of thirds, it is an esthetically pleasing to the eye presentation.

Often it is not a choice of choosing one or the other, it is using the one that by convention just "looks right" to most people. But, as pointed out, there are many fine works of art that do not hold too strictly to these conventions.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

I'm pretty sure the whole left/right brain thing was mostly beaten to death and was mostly just a school theory that mostly helped teachers balance students between the arts and science subjects. I think it was aided by a general reduction in the quality of art teachers and the teaching of art as a subject which resulted in it being a subject where "natural talent" became more and more a thing until now many consider art to be this mysterious and magical subject where you have to "be born with it" and where the elements of creation and composition cannot be learned nor taught. This is despite the fact that there clearly are mechanics behind it and that many people can, indeed, learn art without any natural talent.

I don't ever remember left/right brain to have been beaten to death, in fact it is still very much current thought.

I don't ever remember anybody suggesting that either can't be taught...

...And you seem to be suggesting that composition is entirely a function of geometry.

Problem number 2, the unequal weight of colours.

This is not some crackpot theory but a well understood and practiced one. It is important because to understand it you must gain a visual understanding rather than a mathematical one. We are not machines, we do not see things in an entirely analytical way as say a computer would, and probably the most obvious area this is displayed in is our perception of colour. It is why when we progress to learning colour that our understanding of images and composition as a whole becomes more abstract and visual and less rigid and mathematical.

The trouble with the placement of *objects* on the *lines* or *intersection points* is that there is no recognition of colour. The *object* gains significance because it's placed on the *intersection point* rather than understanding that the object itself has the significance. It fails to recognise why we have identified the *eye* as the object of significance even before we place it.

Whenever we look at anything we seek to fit it into some sort of order and so gain and understanding. A lot of how we learn to order and understand the space we occupy has to do with *left brain* learning and a lot is equally instinctive and is a part of being human. If you reduce composition to a maths exercise then it will become mechanical and lack that human touch and understanding. If we move to an image formed entirely from *right brain unconscious thought* then it quickly becomes meaningless simply because we can no longer find an order by which to understand it. So what to do?

This is one of those *contradictions* that lie at the heart of art and composition. What most artists have done is to reduce the canvass to really simple geometrical shapes. They then, to a large extent, hide this from the viewer using many devices. But most of all they think in terms of how we see and divide the space and not about how geometry does it. Art changes not only with the fads and fashions but also with the way our scientific understanding has changed our viewpoint. That dynamic rectangles appear in Greek and Roman architecture is no real surprise when you understand how they are formed and how buildings were laid out with stakes and lengths of rope. That the fashion re-visited them in the Renaissance when art re-visited the long abandoned principles of art of the Greeks and Romans is also not surprising. But it doesn't convey any great significance in the geometry just as this years colours fail to give any significance to the nature of light.

 

[jcdeboever]

I was a self taught artist and took many books out on it when I was young. One text book that helped me a great deal in drawing was about drawing from the right side of your brain. It was very comprhensive as I recall and expedited my copying skill to an advanced degree. I wore that book out. One of the lessons was about drawing family members and the struggle to get them to look as they appear as opposed to how you see them. It was very interesting because I struggled with it. The lesson was to take a picture of them and tape it upside down on the desk. There it was, I could draw them as they appeared. The second part of the lesson was to draw it without looking at the paper you were drawing on. Thw third part was tondraw without looking at the paper or lifting the pencil. Each lesson was a month long of daily practice. Amazing results.

 

[smoke665]

Left brain, right brain, teaching one or the other.......heck at my age I'm just happy to let any part that still works do it's thing! Like the ISO argument mentioned earlier, this whole thread is becoming more technical then necessary, and losing sight of the fact that the use of any alignment guide is nothing more then a tool. @Grandpa Ron said it best above "Often it is not a choice of choosing one or the other, it is using the one that by convention just "looks right".

 

[Soocom1]

Funny thing.
I remember when the whole left-right thing got started.

I was around 11 or so and my mother thought it was all poppycock.

Mostly because it opened up alot of other discussions that simply was not relevant then.
But I wont argue the point, its simply something someone figured out.


left or right, doesn't really matter to me as much as learning how the mechanisms work,.