The Rules of Art (and photography) - I'm gonna tell them to you

[Ysarex]

I'd like to compliment you, Joe. You managed to completely dismiss my point and simultaneously derail discussion. Well done.

Thanks. Got to run to work. Later.
Joe

 

[sleist]

And by the way, I'm missing your photography. Would you consider posting again?

Agreed.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

And by the way, I'm missing your photography. Would you consider posting again?

Agreed.

I will when I have something to post. Business is booming, and I generally only get to the hobby on vacation. Which starts tomorrow, incidentally. But I actually decided not to burden myself with the camera on this trip. I'll have my iPhone6, and I'll make do with that.

E.rose, you available for dinner mid week?

 

[Torus34]

Taste -- and my post #18:

We're all familiar with the phrase, "I know what I like." It's often preceded by, 'I'm no expert, but ...'. Now, liking isn't the same as being able to formally analyze. I'm able to like a dish in a restaurant without knowing much about its ingredients. The same goes for art. And photographic prints. I may not be able to precisely articulate the why of my liking, but it doesn't mean that I can't discriminate between my personal 'like' and 'don't like'. [Ed.: Alternately, Torus can analyze a Bach fugue from the printed score but may admit to not liking it all that much as something to listen to.]

Liking something, for those who haven't formally studied the class of objects to which it belongs, is probably dependent on the same unconscious internalization of 'rules' process that a child uses in forming sentences. Once we grasp this, we can then proceed to considering someone's rule 'toolkit' to that of someone else or, perhaps, the toolkit which underlies the prevailing opinion.

At the end of the day, though, we're left with a discussion of the validity of toolkits. As these are to some extent culturally dependent, it's mighty difficult to place rock-solid ground beneath our intellectual feet. Aestheticians have searched for certainty for a very, very long time.

Perhaps the Roman phrase De gustibus non est disputandum had a leg up on the truth.

For this pocm, the jury's still out.

 

[Forkie]

"Good taste is the enemy of creativity"
Pablo Picasso

 

[bribrius]

Taste -- and my post #18:

We're all familiar with the phrase, "I know what I like." It's often preceded by, 'I'm no expert, but ...'. Now, liking isn't the same as being able to formally analyze. I'm able to like a dish in a restaurant without knowing much about its ingredients. The same goes for art. And photographic prints. I may not be able to precisely articulate the why of my liking, but it doesn't mean that I can't discriminate between my personal 'like' and 'don't like'. [Ed.: Alternately, Torus can analyze a Bach fugue from the printed score but may admit to not liking it all that much as something to listen to.]

Liking something, for those who haven't formally studied the class of objects to which it belongs, is probably dependent on the same unconscious internalization of 'rules' process that a child uses in forming sentences. Once we grasp this, we can then proceed to considering someone's rule 'toolkit' to that of someone else or, perhaps, the toolkit which underlies the prevailing opinion.

At the end of the day, though, we're left with a discussion of the validity of toolkits. As these are to some extent culturally dependent, it's mighty difficult to place rock-solid ground beneath our intellectual feet. Aestheticians have searched for certainty for a very, very long time.

Perhaps the Roman phrase De gustibus non est disputandum had a leg up on the truth.

For this pocm, the jury's still out.

i dunno. I was at a photo lab yesterday and they hung up prints there apparently taken by someone who works for fuji lab. There were customers looking at them in somewhat amazment. The lab assistant pulls out more the person from fuji lab had taken and we all find our selves sitting around the counter looking at them. The other customers, were in true amazement by the photos. As they passed them around to me (some are hung too) i get to the lion (wow how did he get so close! they said) i look at it, long range lens in a zoo. I see the look on their face kind of lose some excitement. Next photo, building over sharpened and blue water? Tell them it is over processed and start picking apart the processing and fake coloring, i see the looks of thrill dwindle even more. Following here? People dont have a clue what they are really looking at. Once you crush the facade it pretty much goes down hill. we had passed probably ten photos around. By the time it was done they decided the guy sucked. They thought the photos were great at first. Because they had no clue what they were really looking at.

 

[Designer]

Once you crush the facade it pretty much goes down hill.

This is not "crushing the facade", it is educating the viewers.

 

[bribrius]

Once you crush the facade it pretty much goes down hill.

This is not "crushing the facade", it is educating the viewers.

well. i educated them and their opinions on the photos drastically changed. I have a feeling the more i get involved in art locally (i am volunteering to run one of the local galleries now a few hours here and there) the more outspoken and "educating" i might be doing. LOL

 

[Forkie]

Taste -- and my post #18:

We're all familiar with the phrase, "I know what I like." It's often preceded by, 'I'm no expert, but ...'. Now, liking isn't the same as being able to formally analyze. I'm able to like a dish in a restaurant without knowing much about its ingredients. The same goes for art. And photographic prints. I may not be able to precisely articulate the why of my liking, but it doesn't mean that I can't discriminate between my personal 'like' and 'don't like'. [Ed.: Alternately, Torus can analyze a Bach fugue from the printed score but may admit to not liking it all that much as something to listen to.]

Liking something, for those who haven't formally studied the class of objects to which it belongs, is probably dependent on the same unconscious internalization of 'rules' process that a child uses in forming sentences. Once we grasp this, we can then proceed to considering someone's rule 'toolkit' to that of someone else or, perhaps, the toolkit which underlies the prevailing opinion.

At the end of the day, though, we're left with a discussion of the validity of toolkits. As these are to some extent culturally dependent, it's mighty difficult to place rock-solid ground beneath our intellectual feet. Aestheticians have searched for certainty for a very, very long time.

Perhaps the Roman phrase De gustibus non est disputandum had a leg up on the truth.

For this pocm, the jury's still out.

i dunno. I was at a photo lab yesterday and they hung up prints there apparently taken by someone who works for fuji lab. There were customers looking at them in somewhat amazment. The lab assistant pulls out more the person from fuji lab had taken and we all find our selves sitting around the counter looking at them. The other customers, were in true amazement by the photos. As they passed them around to me (some are hung too) i get to the lion (wow how did he get so close! they said) i look at it, long range lens in a zoo. I see the look on their face kind of lose some excitement. Next photo, building over sharpened and blue water? Tell them it is over processed and start picking apart the processing and fake coloring, i see the looks of thrill dwindle even more. Following here? People dont have a clue what they are really looking at. Once you crush the facade it pretty much goes down hill. we had passed probably ten photos around. By the time it was done they decided the guy sucked. They thought the photos were great at first. Because they had no clue what they were really looking at.

Picking photos apart will always "break" them. That's like a magician doing amazing tricks and then just telling everyone how it was done.

The suspension of disbelief in these situations is important. If you went to see a film at the cinema and could see reflections of camera crew or boom mics clearly in shot - it would ruin the illusion. Everyone knows how films are made with green screens and CGI, but they place their disbelief on hold so that they can fully enjoy the final result.

If someone really enjoys a photo or a film or a magic trick, why wouldn't you want them to continue enjoying it? Why ruin it by de-mystifying it? I think the whole reason they enjoyed that photo of the lion was precisely because they were wondering "How did they get so close?". That was probably the very essence of that photo's appeal - and it was ruined for them by saying "They just stood far away behind a fence and zoomed in".

 

[bribrius]

Taste -- and my post #18:

We're all familiar with the phrase, "I know what I like." It's often preceded by, 'I'm no expert, but ...'. Now, liking isn't the same as being able to formally analyze. I'm able to like a dish in a restaurant without knowing much about its ingredients. The same goes for art. And photographic prints. I may not be able to precisely articulate the why of my liking, but it doesn't mean that I can't discriminate between my personal 'like' and 'don't like'. [Ed.: Alternately, Torus can analyze a Bach fugue from the printed score but may admit to not liking it all that much as something to listen to.]

Liking something, for those who haven't formally studied the class of objects to which it belongs, is probably dependent on the same unconscious internalization of 'rules' process that a child uses in forming sentences. Once we grasp this, we can then proceed to considering someone's rule 'toolkit' to that of someone else or, perhaps, the toolkit which underlies the prevailing opinion.

At the end of the day, though, we're left with a discussion of the validity of toolkits. As these are to some extent culturally dependent, it's mighty difficult to place rock-solid ground beneath our intellectual feet. Aestheticians have searched for certainty for a very, very long time.

Perhaps the Roman phrase De gustibus non est disputandum had a leg up on the truth.

For this pocm, the jury's still out.

i dunno. I was at a photo lab yesterday and they hung up prints there apparently taken by someone who works for fuji lab. There were customers looking at them in somewhat amazment. The lab assistant pulls out more the person from fuji lab had taken and we all find our selves sitting around the counter looking at them. The other customers, were in true amazement by the photos. As they passed them around to me (some are hung too) i get to the lion (wow how did he get so close! they said) i look at it, long range lens in a zoo. I see the look on their face kind of lose some excitement. Next photo, building over sharpened and blue water? Tell them it is over processed and start picking apart the processing and fake coloring, i see the looks of thrill dwindle even more. Following here? People dont have a clue what they are really looking at. Once you crush the facade it pretty much goes down hill. we had passed probably ten photos around. By the time it was done they decided the guy sucked. They thought the photos were great at first. Because they had no clue what they were really looking at.

Picking photos apart will always "break" them. That's like a magician doing amazing tricks and then just telling everyone how it was done.

The suspension of disbelief in these situations is important. If you went to see a film at the cinema and could see reflections of camera crew or boom mics clearly in shot - it would ruin the illusion. Everyone knows how films are made with green screens and CGI, but they place their disbelief on hold so that they can fully enjoy the final result.

If someone really enjoys a photo or a film or a magic trick, why wouldn't you want them to continue enjoying it? Why ruin it by de-mystifying it? I think the whole reason they enjoyed that photo of the lion was precisely because they were wondering "How did they get so close?". That was probably the very essence of that photo's appeal - and it was ruined for them by saying "They just stood far away behind a fence and zoomed in".

i answered the question. Once you display publicly they are up for critique. Especially when you print and hang. If the prints weren't being hung i wouldn't have said anything. They weren't ALL that bad. Couple were pretty decent. Photographer seemed real big on fake coloring (often bleeding like red tree leaves bleeding into the sky) but at least in two he had a decent leading line.

 

[Torus34]

Just for fun:

There was a young photog from Jamestown
Who spoke of his prints with a deep frown.
"They're not good, I can see,
"But just why escapes me.
"Tell me, please, lest I have me a meltdown."

 

[Designer]

Brian; Instead of finding flaws, why not point out some of the better features?

They can't be all bad, and even the not so good ones probably have something that is worth noting.

 

[bribrius]

Brian; Instead of finding flaws, why not point out some of the better features?

They can't be all bad, and even the not so good ones probably have something that is worth noting.

sometimes i do. I also keep in mind i am not "the real slim shady". So i probably am more on the side of giving a free pass. If i find 5 faults in something someone with more credentials could probably find another 15 i overlooked. Basically, i figure if it doesn't pass with me it must have some serious issues and more knowledgeable people would probably shred it..

 

[W.Y.Photo]

In my opinion, nothing says "I don't know what I'm talking about" more than referring to "The Rules".

Photography and art use visual language.
Visual organization using the elements of design.
Like language, the larger your vocabulary, the more accurately, and effectively, you can communicate.

The ideas that drive me absolutely bonkers, which are all too frequently put forth here, are "rules are meant to be broken" and "learn the rules, and then break them."
No. You will never change the elements of design. You can only use the ones that effectively communicate your intention. A horizontal line will never, ever, ever, be dynamic. Ever! Balance will never provoke a sense of unrest or discord. EVER!

I think the elements and principles of design are the things the beginning art photographer needs to study. I had been studying and practicing photography for close to a decade until I got to university, and began studying photography as a fine art, in the fine arts department. I also studied photography from the university science department, and in a practical sense, learned about photojournalistic photography. The things I learned from the fine arts people were so,so,so different from what I had learned from years' worth of books and magazines about the craft side of photography.

It's a shame that so many people look at photography as little more than a paint-by-numbers type of thing, a reduction of photography to purely numerical qualities like black point, white point, white balance in degrees Kelvin, focal lengths,etc.. The idea that solid technical numbers (good exposure, good tonal range,decent focus) can overcome atrocious, unstudied composition.

An example of what gets my goat: a horizontal composition with 40% of the frame allocated to a person placed in the center of the frame, and 60% of the frame empty, filled with dead space on either side of the head, and of course, the top of the head lopped off; even more tragic is the person placed at a "Rule of Thirds" intersection, and then the eyes looking to the short side of the frame, with 70% of the frame filled with dead space; and then hearing the comment, "I like to explore negative space in my work." These two scenarios are prime examples of people who have not been exposed to the ideas of the elements and principles of design.

Bitter Jeweler's commentary in Post #21 says it all, almost PERFECTLY.

I thought the difference was that artists couldn't afford to eat and designers could.

As it turns out, people want answers, not more questions.

Design Vs Art The Difference And Why It Matters - Hongkiat

This is a really complicated thing to discuss so I'll attempt to put it concisely.

Darrel and Bitter Jeweler you guys are right. The Elements and Principles of Design are by and large the most important things in photography excluding its extraordinary capacity for recording reality. No aspiring artist should ever, ever, ever attempt to go full fledged into art without understanding and respecting them.

Unpopular you say they are mixing up design and art, I beg to differ.. atleast slightly. I think they are mixing up good design and the intentional use of bad design for artistic purposes. As they said.. most of the elements of design really are infallible. Diagonal lines always create a sense of energy, desaturation always puts an emphasis on form, yadda yadda yadda..

The differences between the elements of art and the elements of design come in to play in certain scenarios where going against the "infallible" elements of design actually creates a feeling that is intended by the artist. (Making an image of a person on the right side of the frame staring off to the right to intentionally push the viewer away from the left and away from the picture, and so on.)

Now to be perfectly clear... when I say "going against" I don't mean "breaking" the elements. As you've stated they are unbreakable. I mean going against the guidelines set in place by previous generations of artists in order to illicit a different sort of response or find a new approach to creating imagery. Design and art aren't "different" per say, it's just that design is a part of art and "designers" are formulaic and compositional artists while traditional artists tend to be more about expression and breaking the mold.

The elements of design are like the laws of physics; artworks, designs, and photographs are like experiments operating in a manner that is forever bound by the laws of that realm which they exist within.




Edit: So much for concise

 

[bentcountershaft]

In case any beginners are reading along with this I think it's worth mentioning something that I don't believe anyone has expressed, thus far; Strict adhesion to the "rules" does not guarantee excellent results.

Think of it like elements of a term paper. You're grammar and spelling are perfect. You've selected the proper line spacing and margins. All of your sources are present, complete and in the appropriate places. It's the shining example of proper layout and execution. But if the content sucks the whole paper sucks.