The amazing thing about composition is how few people really do it, both painters and photographers. They just arrange things so they fit in the frame, that's it. Very rarely does anybody work consciously with lines and tension in the frame. How rare? Well, as an example I've probably had pictures submitted to Domai from over a thousand photographers. 98% of them were good enough to be publishable. In other words, these guys are far better than the average snapshooter. And yet, of those thousand photographers I've found maybe five who seemed to me to be working consciously and artistically with composition.
Update:
Tommy said:
Eolake.. Composition, I'm glad that this subject came up again. I've been reading a book on composition and you recently had a posting of a picture that you say has good composition. It's a posting from May 13th 2009 of an old neighborhood covered in snow [see below, posted again. -E]. I've looked and thought about that picture quite a bit while thinking on the book that I'm reading. The book doesn't (unless I haven't gotten to it yet) talk about lines in a photo being what makes good composition, which if I remember right you thought was what made it a well composed picture. I would really appreciate it if you could take a minute and make some additional comments on that picture as to what makes it's composition good.
Well, now you put me in the spot. Nobody agrees on anything in aesthetics and composition! :-)
Firstly, for some reason I tend to think about pictures mainly in terms of lines. I don't know why. Others has "Shapes" as their basic, others have Color, others have Message, others have Subject... you get the idea.
Why do I think this is a good composition? The short answer is, I enjoy it, it excites me. But that does not help you. The longer answer is hard... I doubt whether we will ever get a scientific formula which explains it, but to me it feels like every part of this picture "is aware" of every other part. As if they are placed deliberately to make a Whole. As if there is a particular tension and at the same time harmony between every shape and every line within the frame.
Too much tension and too little harmony makes a picture (or book, or song) discordant, unpleasant. Too much harmony and too little tension makes it boring and predictable.
Pop music and cookie-jar paintings tend to lean towards the harmonic side. Avant-garde art tends to lean towards tension.
Example: in the picture below, the wires across the sky are slanted. If they were horizontal and if the tree in the middle had been totally vertical, the whole thing (to me) would be too harmonious and thus boring. It would have lost the precious tension.
Hope I'm helping.
Basic courses on composition usually explains about "L" compositions, triangle compositions, circle compositions, etc. I think this is a good start, because it makes you start to think about the frame and elements as a whole. But of course as an artist advances, he goes beyond those basic shapes.
9 comments:
I once heard a lecture by a photographer of some local note that all photographs, even "still" photos had movement. He said that in a still photo, the viewer's eyes moved around the photo, and that through composition, the photographer could control the way the eye moves over and focuses on the image. By controlling the movement of the eyes, you affect the impression it has on the viewer. Easier said then done, but his images seemed to make it work.
I think this is why some still images seem to come alive, while others just seem "flat" or "dead."
Eolake.. Composition, I'm glad that this subject came up again. I've been reading a book on composition and you recently had a posting of a picture that you say has good composition. It's a posting from May 13th 2009 of an old neighborhood covered in snow.
I've looked and thought about that picture quite a bit while thinking on the book that I'm reading. The book doesn't (unless I haven't gotten to it yet) talk about lines in a photo being what makes good composition, which if I remember right you thought was what made it a well composed picture.
I would really appreciate it if you could take a minute and make some additional comments on that picture as to what makes it's compostition good.
Tommy, I've updated the post in an attempt to answer you.
I can't count the number of times I've seen a photo where I wish the photographer had been two steps to the right or left. They seems to see the subject but not what the things behind the subject do to the pictures.
Too much tension and too little harmony makes a picture (or book, or song) discordant, unpleasant. Too much harmony and too little tension makes it boring and predictable.
It reminds me on Max Bense, who tried to applicate mathematics and informatics on aesthetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Bense). He called the first aspect "chaos" and the second "monotony".
However, IMO this doesn't help very much to make a good picture, but it might be a help to look at it afterwards.
Creating and analyzing are complementary counterparts.
"Tommy, I've updated the post in an attempt to answer you."
Thanks, I appreciate it and read and re-read your comments and believe that I understand.
I found your short answer very interesting in light of your longer one. You short answer was emotional and with feeling about the image on the picture. My short answer would be similar but for slightly different reasons. The image reminds me of an old town in the western part of state of Massachusetts (USA). Our family's homestead was there and it is very hilly with streets just like those shown. So for me, I also like the image for personal or emotional reasons.
Now, your long answer. Lines. I see what you are referring to and understand with your use of tension vs. harmony. That was very well put and easy to understand.
So therefore, if I'm following you correctly there are really three elements here. Individual emotion, Harmony and Tension. By Individual emotion I mean; that looks good to me or it doesn't, for whatever reason.
If I may, just a little more on this word, composition. Those wires, the tree, etc. was already there. By that I mean, the photographer did not create that scene, he/she just recorded it. He/she didn't create the composition, it was there.
If a painter paints a picture, he/she creates the composition. It gets composed by the artist. This is not really true in photography, unless you're real good with Photoshop. I understand that this discusion is headed nowhere, because the term composition is widely used in photography so to question like this is useless. But, and there's always a but... If any of this is correct, than how do you compose a picture? Can you compose a picture or is it just thought of that way when it is viewed after the fact?
Gee, I hope this makes sence and you don't kick me off your blog.
Yes, you use things that are already there. You make the composition by using your viewpoint to select what things to include in the picture, and where they sit in relation to each other. You also use the light, time of day, time of year, how wide a lens to use, etc.
Thanks for your help, I'm feeling much more comfortable with this term composition now. As I often do, I was digging into it too much looking for that elusive definition, of which there really isn't one.
So I'll relax and rely on those old sayings...
If it looks good, it is good.
-and-
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Com means "together" pose means "to put". Compose just means to put things together.
Post a Comment