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

[acparsons]

The first rule of Art is that there are no rules. Here is one example of breaking a photography rule. This man has most of his head cut out of the photo and most of his arm.

 

[Designer]

The first rule of Art is that there are no rules.

I like your photograph, ac, but I disagree with your statement above.

I know it has been said hundreds of times by artists from all over, but it is an old saw that if taken out of context can lead the neophyte astray.

Yes, there are rules, and no, they have not changed substantially over centuries, but as this discussion has illustrated, one can slavishly adhere to "the rules" and utterly fail, or one can artistically bend and break rules to create successful art.

Your photograph illustrates that cropping heads and limbs is not the only "rule" in the book.

 

[bentcountershaft]

The first rule of Art is that there are no rules. Here is one example of breaking a photography rule. This man has most of his head cut out of the photo and most of his arm.

That's just displaying another composition technique. It's called repoussoir. It's when you frame one of the edges with a hard line, leading the eye in.

 

[Ysarex]

The first rule of Art is that there are no rules. Here is one example of breaking a photography rule.

First there are no rules, but then here's an example of breaking a rule?

Joe

Worth considering: Coursera - Free Online Courses From Top Universities

 

[pgriz]

The first rule of Art is that there are no rules. Here is one example of breaking a photography rule.

First there are no rules, but then here's an example of breaking a rule?

Joe

Worth considering: Coursera - Free Online Courses From Top Universities

Hey Joe, quit this logic business. No telling what dangerous roads you'll lead us on.

 

[bribrius]

i'm confused.

 

[pgriz]

That may enhance your artistic vision. In fact, I'm sure confusion is appropriate to achieving that nirvanic state of consciousness when it "all makes sense". But before that breakthough, there has to be confusion, else there's no breakthrough in clarity.

So you're good.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

The Rules are that the rules should be broken. The breaking of the rules therefore adhears to the rules. In essence... you've never broken anything.

 

[Designer]

Oh, here's another one that NEEDS to be "broken":

Symmetry.

If just plain symmetry, the composition looks static, so the better compositions will include something that "breaks" the symmetry.

But of course in so doing, one actually reinforces symmetry.

 

[bribrius]

Oh, here's another one that NEEDS to be "broken":

Symmetry.

If just plain symmetry, the composition looks static, so the better compositions will include something that "breaks" the symmetry.

But of course in so doing, one actually reinforces symmetry.

yep. comes down to having that 1 thing that is out of place and doesn't line up.

 

[The_Traveler]

IMO, the 'Rules' are a just a bad theory of composition because they are contradictory and unrelated and, most of all, because they don't deal with the real issues.
Trying to learn photography by learning any 'Rule' or set of them is incomplete because the 'Rules' try to describe incompletely how people perceive something as it is shown to them.
Saying that one should follow Rules until the photographer knows enough to break them is not helping anyone or educating them. People learn to speak by immersion and like learning any language, each of us is different in our ability to absorb the complex language of composition.
People who are new or insecure about their own artistic sense fall back on Rules because following 'Rules' is comfortable and secure.
Many people will never get fluent in that language; I believe that's what drives the emphasis on technical perfection in so many.
Critiquing images by referring to 'Rules' is depriving the recipient of any real insight. An image is successful because it appeals to people and lets them understand what is important and what the photographer wants the viewer to look at and not telling the maker how it succeeds or fails gives them nothing to use later on.
Giving them a 'Rule' to follow doesn't allow them to go far.
When the appeal of an image overcomes any defects or distractions, no one cares about whether 'Rules' are broken or not.

 

[unpopular]

The first rule of Art is that there are no rules. Here is one example of breaking a photography rule. This man has most of his head cut out of the photo and most of his arm.

The subject is not the man, it's the smoke and the cigarette, the relationship between the cigarette and the hand. You have three major elements forming a triangle, which is a dynamic and stable composition in a square format especially. The color is a complementary pair between cyan and red.

I don't see a whole lot of "rule breaking" here at all, actually.

Instead, this example, which I intensionally sought an image with no composition or center of interest at all.

 

[The_Traveler]

Instead, this example, which I intensionally sought an image with no composition or center of interest at all.

When someone looks at a picture, somewhere in their mind there is a little vision engine that tries to parse out what all the things are in each picture, what their relative importance is and what is the meaning of the picture being shown to them.
The role of the photographer is not to follow rules but to present an image that is structured in such a way that the viewer can absorb or appreciate it. (except of course for the example above in which there was a determined wish to not do that. )

Since, in the Western world at least, we seem to inherent some little set of ways in which we parse meanings by size, by color, by brightness, by position- even an untutored person can appreciate some pictures. As people look at more pictures, they form their own set of likes and dislikes, but usually based on a fairly common underlying set of built-in ideas. For example, bright colored things are important, important things are not in the center exactly and not way over on the edge usually, things in the center sort of imply a symmetry. We like balance, it feels good, we are attracted to things that are 'in focus'.
These ideas and presets that seem to be built into most people are sort of described, awkwardly by the 'Rules.'
Photographers can use these preconceptions by violating them and giving that extra fillip of interest.
So critiques ar most helpful, not if you tell the maker what you think diminishes the impact, but why that the 'defect' does diminish the effect. THat helps people to understand what to do and why to do it.

 

[Torus34]

On rules: What I consider to be a good print of mine has the 'horizon' plane at the exact midpoint. It means a static composition, right? But the other part of the composition's a series of waterfalls with a strong 'S' curve. The horizon line plays off against the curve. The result is a tension between the two elements.

 

[unpopular]

Any time you "break" predicted forms you create tension. In fact that is really what composition is about - interrupting the eye's path in a way to lead it towered a central element.

Static compositions "go nowhere", either with a limited or conflicted compositional hierarchy.

I've spent a lot of time working on compositions that have no center of interest, and all forms are of equal visual weight. It's actually a lot harder than you'd think.