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

[bribrius]

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.

"whats the subject?"

(sorry couldn't help it)

 

[The_Traveler]

I reread my posts and realized how poorly expressed they were (I hate the iPad) and so I rewrote them into a short essay here - if you are interested.

Lew Lorton Photography The Rules of Composition The Rules of Art.

 

[Torus34]

@ unpopular: [QUOTE="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.[/QUOTE]

Jackson Pollock also wrestled with the concept and achieved at least a draw -- if not a win.

 

[Torus34]

@ The Traveler: Kinda figured from your Chomsky reference, etc., that you might enjoy the following poem. It speaks rather clearly, I think, to rule-following and perhaps also of popularity, American style.

The Line of an American Poet

That American Poet's future
Was bright because he began
With the know-how of Ford and Chrysler
And the faith of American Can.

He fathomed success's secret
And stuck to his P's and Q's
And urged himself, over and over,
To produce and produce and produce.

His very first models were cleverly
Built; the market boomed.
Some of the world's most critical
Consumers looked, and consumed.

Lines off his line came smoother
And smoother as more and more
Know-how came in the window
And verses rolled out the door,

Until everyone in the market
Knew that his new works were sure
To be just what the country had need of:
Poems uniform, safe and pure.

Reed Whittemore.

Regards,

Jim [Alias Torus34]

 

[bribrius]

I reread my posts and realized how poorly expressed they were (I hate the iPad) and so I rewrote them into a short essay here - if you are interested.

Lew Lorton Photography The Rules of Composition The Rules of Art.

what does the ipad have to do with it?

 

[Soocom1]

Oh what a glorious opportunity to rant on the subject I was about to post on!

Coming from a background of artists and engineers, my life took the turn into first Arch. Drafting, then GIS and Cartography.

Mr. RWE ant-gubnet, anti-tax type now works for a Gov. taxing authority. (Go figure.)

Anyway, during my travels in life I discovered much to my chagrin that not only was my IQ barely tickling the lower double digits, but that my education that I thought was only lacking because I didn’t pursue higher education at the time, was in reality wholly lacking of some of the most basic and fundamental principles of form, function, perspective, geometric design and balance, light behavior et-al.

My pursuit of political wankness and my habit of reading the propaganda from both sides, lead me to see things from a perspective that the whole majority of the other political wank-seekers were wholly lacking in foresight or understanding of the world.

They were only pursuing partisanship and a reason to argue.

Because of the desire to see outside the box, I started finding books on geometry and math, music and language that once read, not only opened my eyes, but to force me to scream at the top of my lung (not exaggerating here) shouting “…WHY DIDN’T THEY TEACH ME THIS STUFF?”

Then it dawned on me that the rules of photography, art and all the other aspects are forced by default to follow rules of established order that man did not create and has been taught and cataloged for thousands of years.

Photography is no different than the rules of perspective as written by Anaxagoras 2400 years ago.

Breaking them is fine. Just don’t expect your audience to grasp what your trying to do.

I have so much more to write, but Ill digress.

 

[unpopular]

Breaking them is fine. Just don’t expect your audience to grasp what your trying to do.

Art is a dialogue, not a message.

See:
New Criticism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[bribrius]

Breaking them is fine. Just don’t expect your audience to grasp what your trying to do.

Art is a dialogue, not a message.

See:
New Criticism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Probably where mentalities like "just the final image matters" came from.

what a load of crap. Prevalent in modern society, but then again so isn't McDonalds hamburgers.

 

[unpopular]

"a load of crap" being my assertion that art is a dialogue, or Soocom's assertion that art is a message?

If the prior, I disagree - art develops as it is discussed, not upon it's creation.

 

[bribrius]

"a load of crap" being my assertion that art is a dialogue, or Soocom's assertion that art is a message?

If the prior, I disagree - art develops as it is discussed, not upon it's creation.

Art is neither, and can be both. I was speaking more of the "new criticism" as i skimmed your link. The attempt to look at art objectively with no historical or other placed into the equation.

 

[bribrius]

"a load of crap" being my assertion that art is a dialogue, or Soocom's assertion that art is a message?

If the prior, I disagree - art develops as it is discussed, not upon it's creation.

Someone posted a pic here of the terracotta warriors a while back. You may like the pic (i did) but i didn't consider the pic art. Even though i suppose you could say it spoke, communicated, whatever in some way perhaps. Did like the pics though, fascinating. What i do consider art is the warriors themselves. But i don't consider them art just because i have seen that pic and know about them now. They didn't start to become art because i suddenly had some revelation about the existence of these warriors. They had the same purpose buried in the ground and unseen than they do now and the same qualities. They existed as art (in my mind) buried in the ground, not saying a thing to anyone, unseen. They don't need my permission to exist as art. They were given that by their creators. By both of your calculations. I am under the impression that anyone could snap a digital photo with a compelling composition that communicates. And that digital image would be conisidered art then more than those terracotta warriors before they were unearthed. Sorry, i can't make that leap. i just don't see it. Just as i can't see the history, purpose, or context, or methods in which the terracotta warriors were brought into form having nothing to do with them as art. As such things caused them to be formed in that way and still effect perception of them to this day. (hence the kill the final image philosophy which should have been dead long ago).

It almost seems as art diverged, and broke off. what is deemed as art now concentrates nearly entirely on aesthetics. which seems to be what you two were discussing in your posts. Aesthetic art. If art should have been narrowed to such a category and become so prevalent to be considered in such a way i am just not sure is correct? When other factors of the art are subtracted according the the link you posted it seems even more driven to aesthetics only. I could be wrong? But it seems a cycle that almost precludes narrowing it down to a more and more shallow form. As now we have pieces that can have little real weight, but are still considered art on technical merit or if it says anything at all.

Perhaps the drive to this end, especially in photography, is somehow trying to find justification of our work as legitimate art. By separating it from the more tangible works. So as we concentrate more on just "meeting the criteria" we also lower the bar to "if it has some composition, form and says anything it is art"This is all aesthetics though. How pretty is it? How pleasing to the eye? But what we are left with. And in doing so we put our digital photos which we can more easily meet this aesthetic criteria with into this realm. Which before was reserved for more artisans, or at least of perhaps much greater caliber than us.. Like our manual cameras or digital cameras and photoshop earned us the same prestige.
Not to say none of us are artists, just seems our quality might be suffering so we seek easier methods in which to achieve. Concentrating on aesthetics, something we can more easily do, makes that easier. But will anyone consider anything turned out under these principle art in two hundred, five hundred, years? I find that doubtful. We may want to get out some chisels and learn to sculpt.

 

[unpopular]

"a load of crap" being my assertion that art is a dialogue, or Soocom's assertion that art is a message?

If the prior, I disagree - art develops as it is discussed, not upon it's creation.

Art is neither, and can be both. I was speaking more of the "new criticism" as i skimmed your link. The attempt to look at art objectively with no historical or other placed into the equation.

New Criticism allows art to exist in it's own "space", it allows the audience to participate with art, rather than simply being "shouted at" by the artist - it acknowledges that audience worldview has value and merit in it's interpretation, rather than denying it. It introduces the notion that art is an experience that we share, rather than this sort of one-dimensional, singular message. It allows art to be art, not art history - which has entirely different objectives. (not that there is anything wrong with art history)

What I think is important to remember, however, is that the artist also has an experience with the art he or she creates. This experience is not invalid or inferior to the audience, and the audience's experience is not inferior to the artist's.

Basically new criticism is saying that so long as you're truly experiencing art, you can't be experiencing it "wrong" simply because you came to a different conclusion from the artist.

 

[Soocom1]

Breaking them is fine. Just don’t expect your audience to grasp what your trying to do.

Art is a dialogue, not a message.

See:
New Criticism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then you miss the point of what I was saying.

 

[Designer]

Breaking them is fine. Just don’t expect your audience to grasp what your trying to do.

Anybody who recognizes that the rules have been broken will necessarily already have been familiar with them.

As usual, one's audience will consist of a mix of people who "get it" and those who don't.

 

[Soocom1]

Breaking them is fine. Just don’t expect your audience to grasp what your trying to do.

Anybody who recognizes that the rules have been broken will necessarily already have been familiar with them.

As usual, one's audience will consist of a mix of people who "get it" and those who don't.

No argument there.

But that wasn't the point of what I was saying.