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

[mishele]

who make real art and has real credentials here? We need the real slim shady to please stand up!

I'm a two time art school drop out, ('cause I refused to conform to their rules, man, I just needed to be free to create) so obviously I'm the most qualified.

Hi!!

 

[photoguy99]

The trouble with "rules" is that there are so many overlapping, coherent, systems.

Adam Marelli promotes a system based on lines, and he's right. He makes beautiful pictures. You can use systems based on regions instead, though. Or systems based on balance and breadth. Or you can use a mix... sort of. Crossing the streams is a bit fraught.

All systems tend to produce more or less similar images, but they are different ways of thinking about it, different wants of constructing and deconstructing them.

And then, finally, the elephant in the room: you gotta have taste. none of the systems work in the absence of taste.

 

[unpopular]

I find it interesting that people are so willing to speculate on the Nature of Art without bothering to read up, even a little bit.

Actually... my philosophy of aesthetics is derived from the lectures of Bard University philosopher Heinrich Blucher

PHILOSOPHY OF ART - Page One

 

[Overread]

JoeW I think we are in agreement just that we've worded things differently. I certainly overloaded the first post somewhat with "the rules". I did that on purpose because that is how we keep thinking about them. Or at least it is often how those new to it all get the idea of it (because there is the rule of thirds which is pretty much the go-to rule for every single beginner guide - sometimes to the point where they mention other elements only in passing or only in reference to how they can be used within the rule of thirds).


I very much agree its a language element - and like a language there are lots of theories which don't necessarily always line up and are relevant at the same time; we must prioritize. Art is, of course, far more complex and the number of combinations far greater - as such certainly one must learn how to weight each concept and theory within a shot - to have some idea what important elements are and how to promote them.


Certainly its a case that hte more you learn - the more vocabulary you add - the more you can communicate. Which was a core part I was trying to get across - trying to encourage people to pick up the books and website and videos and chat and expand their visual communication library.

 

[pgriz]

And then, finally, the elephant in the room: you gotta have taste. none of the systems work in the absence of taste.

Right. Now let's define "taste".

 

[Derrel]

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.

 

[bribrius]

I find it interesting that people are so willing to speculate on the Nature of Art without bothering to read up, even a little bit.

Actually... my philosophy of aesthetics is derived from the lectures of Bard University philosopher Heinrich Blucher

PHILOSOPHY OF ART - Page One

holy chit. That is longer than a nikon manual. And i thought some of us were long winded! Any chance of getting abridged notes or maybe more pictures? Picture book version? Thought this was a visual medium!!

 

[unpopular]

I think the elements and principles of design are the things the beginning art photographer needs to study.

Overread - much has been written about the differences between art and design, and I feel that much of what you're talking about here is design, not art.

And there is a difference. This isn't to say that design is "bad" or inferior, and either is essential to both - but it's important to understand the difference between the two.

 

[unpopular]

holy chit. That is longer than a nikon manual. And i thought some of us were long winded! Any chance of getting abridged notes or maybe more pictures? Picture book version? Thought this was a visual medium!!

Here you go

COMICS INFORMATION DESIGN PT. 3 BUT IS IT ART

 

[bentcountershaft]

Overread - much has been written about the differences between art and design, and I feel that much of what you're talking about here is design, not art.

And there is a difference. This isn't to say that design is "bad" or inferior, and either is essential to both - but it's important to understand the difference between the two.

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

 

[unpopular]

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

 

[bribrius]

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.

Not sure i agree with the highlighted. That seems actually a step up to advanced composition. Putting you subject dead center is the standard basic level of composition for portraits is it not? A quick search online will find you many examples of negative space in portraiture from different mediums i believe.

 

[bribrius]

holy chit. That is longer than a nikon manual. And i thought some of us were long winded! Any chance of getting abridged notes or maybe more pictures? Picture book version? Thought this was a visual medium!!

Here you go

COMICS INFORMATION DESIGN PT. 3 BUT IS IT ART

Thankyou!

 

[unpopular]

Putting you subject dead center is the standard basic level of composition for portraits is it not?

I personally find the "never center" rule kind of absurd. What's more important is a dynamic relationship of elements, not so much the specific placement on the frame.

Granted, it is often easier to form dynamic relationships when the eye is drawn away from the center of the frame, but that doesn't mean that centering should never be used - in fact, square formats frequently benefit from centered elements.

 

[bribrius]

Putting you subject dead center is the standard basic level of composition for portraits is it not?

I personally find the "never center" rule kind of absurd. What's more important is a dynamic relationship of elements, not so much the specific placement on the frame.

Granted, it is often easier to form dynamic relationships when the eye is drawn away from the center of the frame, but that doesn't mean that centering should never be used - in fact, square formats frequently benefit from centered elements.

It only crossed my mind because i saw what he typed and a while ago someone had posted a low key portrait using negative space and if i recall correctly were told they were wrong in critique and it needed to be cropped to center the subject. I was tempted to critique the critique but didn't want to get into it so just moved on.