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



## Overread (Apr 1, 2015)

Rules

It turns out artists (and by extension photographers in particular) don't like rules.

Maybe its the world "RULES" that invokes some kind of mental image of evil school-teachers and repeated "No Ball Games" signs that just begged to be torn down and ignored. Whatever it is it seems that as soon as art and rules come together fights break out. People lash out - almost in a mindless state of wanting to make sure that their art; their photography; their hobby is without these imposing rules. 

Somehow I think its a desire to ascribe the romantic notion of freedom to photography and art in general. To feel that there is something "natural" in the creative world that defies control; logic; rules; books; learning - that is instinctive and thus comes from the person alone. That they are born with it - that they are greater for it; that they can stand up upon a pedestal higher than the rest of us (artistically speaking of course).




Well whatever the reason it leads to fights. Personally I think its because we misunderstand the term in itself- and we couple that to the fact that most of us, honestly  - well we never went to art school and we didn't learn it and we don't really understand it. 

So here's a thought. Art in relation to photography is about speaking to people. 

You are speaking to people in visual terms; in a language which has no verbal component, nor motion and often no written component either (though not always of course - sometimes the words written within a photo are key). 

Indeed we accept this very readily - we openly say "A photo paints a 1000 words" and other such similar statements. 


So we do indeed accept that photography is, in part, a language form. Now if we build from there we already know that the language we speak; that we learned more by instinct from youth (at least for our mother tongue(s) is a language with structure. It has rules, conventions and concepts within it that allow us to speak to each other and be understood. 



Now we've accepted that languages have a structure to them. Rules that underpin how we communicate with them that allows one person to speak to the other. We also know that these structures have localizations and further that the formal structure is not always what we use. In fact most of us bumble along very understandably in a more casual manner. It's not "better" nor "worse" overall; its just different.


Thus I would liken photography and art to language. 
We can learn both through the osmosis of growing up and we can learn both formally. We can "break" or "twist" the rules that we are given; but we also cannot just "break" things without learning them first. We have to learn how those rules work; why they work; what contexts they requires to work - then we can work on breaking them.

Art, like language, is built to work like that. Because often from the foundation of twisting things we get new theories; new ways of structuring the language which give rules to new "rules" which can establish themselves in time within the population. 

Art is very much the same. 




So what are the rules - the rules are in books. They are in great works of the past and present; they are in the studies of visual communication. They are not something to be feared; to be discounted nor to be twisted to nothing. They are a structure and if we can but learn that structure; or at least a part of it, then it can only take our artistic communication further - take our creativity further (because as we understand how to speak visually better  thus we are vastly more free to speak on more subjects; on more themes and with more clarity).


----------



## table1349 (Apr 1, 2015)

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.” 
― Dalai Lama XIV


----------



## Dave442 (Apr 1, 2015)

I grew up with an art teacher for a mom and the first rule I was taught to break was "color within the lines".


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 1, 2015)

I see them more as guidelines than actual rules.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 1, 2015)

Funny, that's what I told the cop when he got me going 80 in a 60 zone.  He disagreed when I advised him that the 60 mph sign was only a guide line.  The judge agreed with him.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 1, 2015)

Ahhh....this again.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 1, 2015)

A couple of years ago here on TPF in one of these big discussion-type threads, I wrote about a type of new, beginning shooters who were responding very strongly to C&C's from multiple TPF posters, "They want to work in a visual medium, but they are not willing to learn the visual language." A TPF member here asked if he could use that in his sig file here, and I told him I was uncomfortable with it, because it would be taken out of context. He understood what was meant by the comment, but I don't think there are a lot of people who view studying the fine arts as either 1) worth their time or 2) even a valid exercise because 3) they know what they like, and besides, the fine arts are all a joke anyway. Right?

All photo forums have undercurrents, and different groups. Some people focus on different areas of the art and the craft, learning how to manipulate images in software, how to light things, how to capture birds in flight, how to best render landscapes, or how to do all sorts of things. The *craft part *is talked about a huge amount, but the art part is often disdained by people who insist that there are no guidelines for things like composition and design. There's a new generation of people who practice photography at a very high craft level...but their framing and composition choices are often atrocious. When these issues are addressed by others, the first line trotted out is quite often, "Well, it's art, so it's alllllll subjective, isn't it! So go ****** yourself...I know what I like, and I'm going to keep doing it this way."

Hence the observation, "They want to work in a visual medium, but they are not willing to learn the visual language." it's very difficult to have discussions with people who do not actually value design or the fine arts. The people who belittle those who have made their life's work in the design fields make me aware of how very "democratic" the web, and photography, have become. And I do not mean that in a good way.


----------



## pgriz (Apr 1, 2015)

Hey now.  Every generation discovers sex for the first time.  Why should art be any different?


----------



## table1349 (Apr 1, 2015)

pgriz said:


> Hey now.  Every generation discovers sex for the first time.  Why should art be any different?


This isn't the way I remember the discovery. http://www.loltexts.org/pictures/2012/11/NEW_WAY_SEX.png


----------



## pgriz (Apr 1, 2015)

Ok, I must be old-school.  I haven't tweeted, texted, or in any way communicated to the world what goes on.  So maybe, in line with the thought "if a tree falls in the forest, and there's no-one to hear it, does it make a sound?", if it didn't get tweeted, it didn't happen?  Which, if true can be the new contraceptive method.  Hmmm.  But we're going off topic.


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 1, 2015)

I predict this thread will get to 2 pages without any pictures, then  it goes off to a completely different topic.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 1, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> I predict this thread will get to 2 pages without any pictures, then  it goes off to a completely different topic.



Beards are the new bacon?


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 1, 2015)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > I predict this thread will get to 2 pages without any pictures, then  it goes off to a completely different topic.
> ...



Lumbersexual...


----------



## Fred Berg (Apr 2, 2015)

*R*eally *U*seful* L*ong* E*stablished *S*ystem

Without them know we wouldn't that Yoda very funny is.


----------



## Forkie (Apr 2, 2015)

The reason there are so many arguments about what constitutes art and what doesn't is that there are so many variables; arguably, infinite variables that no two people can possibly agree on which of those variables, or how many of them are required to, A) qualify something as art in the first place and, B) judge that art as a success.

Some people require one or more of the mathematical elements to be present:  the Rule of Thirds, Golden Ratio, Golden Spiral, full range of tonality, etc.

Some people require the technical aspects to be met: perfect exposure, appropriate DoF for the subject, correct white balance, etc.

Some require cultural aspects important:  What is fashionable or trendy at the moment?  Is the message (if there is one at all) relevant or topical?  Is the message challenging, controversial or conventional?

Some consider the very process of making the art more important than the result itself.

The list goes on.  Some require at least one of each of these to be present, some require more than one, some require only some of them and some don't care whether the art includes any of them at all.  And this doesn't even include personal taste.

For me, that's what makes art so exciting and fascinating.  I've always been a bit of an "Art for Art's Sake" kind of guy.  I will forgo any message or technical aspects in favour of the thing being made in the first place for the sole purpose of making it. 

Generally, when I view a piece of art or a photograph, my immediate thought is "Does it look cool?", if yes, usually the next thought is "How did they make that?".  It's only after that that I start to notice the mathematical parts of a composition or the cultural aspects.  The technical elements of a piece of art, in photography in particular, are usually the last thing I consider and I've usually decided whether I like an image long before I even get to that consideration.


----------



## BrickHouse (Apr 2, 2015)

Art is in the eye of the beer holder.


----------



## JoeW (Apr 2, 2015)

I disagree with the premise of the OP.

There are absolutely rules.  But the fundamental mistake that people are making when they talk about "rules" and photography is to assume that it's a coherent set of rules that can always be followed.  The reality is that the rules contradict, there are too many of them, it's impossible to follow them all simultaneously.

Let me give just two examples:  a clear depth of field can provide a foreground and background which can help lead the viewer's eye/perspective to your subjective and they can provide perspective (so a clear and wide DoF is a good thing).  Except that a limited DoF produces a lovely portrait by removing distractions.  Wait!  Those fricking contradict!  Which rule am I supposed to follow?  I can't have a sharp foreground/background AND a narrow DoF.  Unless I'm playing with a Lensbaby with it's distorted DoF (oops, a THIRD rule about altering perspective and how it can be attention grabbing).

I'm serious when I say there are thousands rules about photography and visual design.  Which do you use--color or B&W?  And if it's color, vivid or faded?  Or color that is tone on tone or contrast?  Or complimentary?  Or color that sets a tone (a portrait with lots of blues and a melancholy expression or one that is warm with a model who is smiling)?  And if instead you go for B&W, is it stark with lots of contrast and dynamic range or muted/faded.  There are rules about color (complimentary is good, contrast is good, tone on tone is good, absence of color is good) and they contradict.  And of course we all know that sharp and distinct is good.  Except I'd argue that one of the three best photos of WWII is a mass of blur and would be significantly less effective it were sharp and distinct and focused:  Capa omaha beach  Except when we want a lot of grain.  Or we intentionally blur to convey movement (think panning).  But wait--that contradicts the rule about shooting with a stable platform b/c we're moving the camera intentionally and deliberately removing stability.  Folks I've just listed a bunch of rules--they're all RULES.  But you can't follow them all simultaneously.

You see (and this goes to Derrel's point), it's not that a good artist ignores the rules. There are thousands of 'em.  It's that a good artist picks which rules to follow (and which ones to ignore) with any given photo they create.  That's what makes this an art.  Not the fact that there are rules (there are rules when you drive your car but that doesn't make driving to the bank or grocery store an art).  It's that a good visual artist looks at a setting and consciously or unconsciously selects a set of rules to follow or give precedence to (and thereby ignoring or deliberately violating the rules that contradict).  When I compose a shot to use negative space, I'm ignoring--no, I'm deliberately choosing this rule over ones that talk about balance in the photo as well as props and settings that provide context and interest.  When in that same picture I place my subject in one corner looking anxiously to the other side of the photo, I'm using that negative space and location to convey a feeling to the photo and I'm selecting it over the rule of thirds and Cartier-Bresson's "golden spiral".

We are not just geeks with expensive toys.  We aren't just "lucky" ("uh, gee, I just happened to push the shutter at the right time!").  But a damn good photographer is an artist.  And that means they create the photo.  And why Mish and Lew and the rest of us could go on a meet-up in DC, look at a setting, and produce different (yet compelling) views of that same approximate setting is b/c each of us chose different rules to apply in that instance.   And that's what art is all about.  Is why Carravagio would provide tremendous detail in his morbid work while Renoir would instead make an "impression" (rather than a detailed replica) of flowers with lots of color, and Dali would put the flowers with a floating corpse and a floppy pocket watch.  They were all effective.  They were all following rules of visual design.  But they all chose to ignore other rules.

Don't confuse photographic rules as a set of requirements we must follow (how most of the world operates with rules) and instead recognize them as a set of choices or paths as to what your art is to be as well as an explanation of why certain types of images or dynamics within the image impact our perception.  And if you choose wisely, you get people going "wow!" and if you choose poorly you get people going "well, at least you remembered to take lens cap off."  No-one ever ignores all the rules b/c if your photography works, it's b/c there are a set of visual design rules that you followed (either deliberately or out of ignorance).  It's just that there isn't just one set of rules.  Like I said, there are literally thousands of 'em.  And the more knowledgable you are about the rules of visual design, the more conscious and deliberate (vs. accidental and lucky) you can be with your art.


----------



## Torus34 (Apr 2, 2015)

The OP contained a very interesting [for this pocm,] link: art 'rules', photography and ... language.  My dustbin of a mind, stuffed with all sorts of trivial bits and pieces, started putting some thoughts together.

I'll start with children and language.  A child, once past the 'goo goo,  da da' stage, shifts rapidly to multi-word sentences.  What's amazing is that a youngster, solely through listening to adult speech, extracts the rules of the language and then uses them in forming sentences.  True, it leads to some humorous results from time to time.  For example, the post-fix '-ed' is recognized as a past-tense cue and results in "He catched the ball."  But that simply reinforces the fact that the language's basic rules have been understood -- and applied.  Rule-breaking, and when to do it, comes later.

However, if we ask a child to tell us the rules he/she's using when speaking,  we'll just get a blank look.  They're known and used, but not verbalize-able!  It's only later in formal schooling that the actual rules [and exceptions!] are taught as a specified system.  Even for us adults, some of it remains rather obscure.  Can you correctly define, say, a gerund or a diphthong?

See where I'm going yet?  Think photography.

We learn, as we go along, how to make better and better prints.  We can look back on our early shots -- the 'goo goo, da da' ones, and see them for what they were: first attempts.  Our later work embodies several 'rules', though we may well have a hard time describing them in detail.  It's only when we undertake a formal study of, say, color and composition that we understand intellectually what we've been doing, more or less, right along.

And, while I'm at it, aren't those instances when we break 'the rules' in order to make a better print analogous -- related in some strange way to, say,  to -- irregular verbs?


----------



## pgriz (Apr 2, 2015)

@Torus34 :  That is an insightful post.  Common usage drives the informal rules, which then get codified into formal structures so that we can explain what our minds have internalized.  This is also the probable reason why people need to spend a lot of time at something (remember the 10,000 hour idea?) because that usage allows us to soak up the informal rules.  We often speak of doing something until it becomes instinctual - and this is a further illustration of the concept.

Where art education and exposure to art plays a role is in giving people the exposure to different forms of visual expression.  Some of these will result in a pleasurable experience, and will contribute to strengthening certain informal rules.  The converse probably also applies.  

The analogy to language is also apt.  When learning a language, the more successful method is to immerse a person in the language, and let them struggle through the cacophony and awkward expression, until there is enough usage and exposure for it to "start making sense".  I don't know of anyone who started with the grammar rules and then segued to fluent speech.  And yet, in the process of learning, it often helps to understand the rules so to more quickly build up the mental scaffold of how things work in our minds.


----------



## Torus34 (Apr 2, 2015)

@pgriz: Yup!  And, if you'll allow me to extend the analogy a bit further [Ed.: maybe too far!] a language is composed of identifiable 'chunks' or bits: letters and phenomes.  Thus, it's already ripe for analysis and rule codification.  It's easily 'digitize-able'.  A print or a painting, on the other hand, is far closer to analog.  The first problem we face is to 'chunk' it.  Digitalize-ing the image into a string of 0's and 1's fails to capture the structures and so the process we use in language [nouns, verbs, etc.] isn't comparable to a digitalized photographic image.  The same, btw, holds true for digitalized music.  [Ed.: It doesn't hold true for scored music, though.  But that's another essay, no?]

Regards, and good lighting to you.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 2, 2015)

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!


----------



## pgriz (Apr 2, 2015)

David, you do need to have allowance for people who also can't fully verbalize what they mean or think.  It takes a while for all of us to understand the nuance and context within which certain statements communicate effectively.  It is true that in the arts field there is a lot of verbiage that gets tossed around nilly-willy, but you get often a similar exposition by teenagers who often don't know what they don't know.  

To me, the process of referring to the rules is part of figuring out what is important and what isn't.  For some the "rules" are the convenient scaffolding on which to build an image.  And yet, as one progresses further in that voyage, one starts to understand that all such rules come with a veritable list of when they can and should be applied and when they shouldn't.  This process is not the same for everyone, and that list of exceptions and conditions will be influenced by ideology, experience, habit, convention and internal mental wiring.  

In relation to absolute statements by teenagers, it often helps clarify the thinking by asking the followup questions such as "why do you think that?"  "What alternative explanations can there be?"  "What if...".  In the context of the art discussions, it also helps to ask on which basis the statement is made.  Often times, once one digs deeper, one finds unresolved contradiction or just plain ignorance.  Personally, I tend to be much more forgiving in this regard, as my own perception is that we all are learning.  Some us of are just further along than others.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 2, 2015)

If you are going to teach someone a language, you don't teach them some other language first. All this stuff is taught on a basic level in high school art classes, using the actual concepts. It should be done here as well. 

What happens here, is you have a bunch of people who learned "Da Rules" here, and regurgitate them to others here, and they often don't really "know" what they are talking about. So it perpetuates an awful, misinformed idea.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 2, 2015)

pgriz said:


> David, you do need to have allowance for people who also can't fully verbalize what they mean or think.



Like me.  I've been trying to figure out how to effectively communicate online purely with grunts for quite a while now, hence my lengthy absence.

Also, regarding rules/guidelines/established visual techniques, the way I see it, the more you know the more you grow.  I saw that on t.v. so it has to be true.

Also also, hi folks.


----------



## pgriz (Apr 2, 2015)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> If you are going to teach someone a language, you don't teach them some other language first. All this stuff is taught on a basic level in high school art classes, using the actual concepts. It should be done here as well.
> 
> What happens here, is you have a bunch of people who learned "Da Rules" here, and regurgitate them to others here, and they often don't really "know" what they are talking about. So it perpetuates an awful, misinformed idea.



I agree that it can be frustrating, but at the same time, it's an opportunity to point out what we know/feel is true.  Some will accept, some will argue, some will reject, some will ignore.  But the conversation usually lets the lurkers think about what is being discussed.   For every individual who responds (in whatever manner) that are probably at least ten lurkers who will have been exposed to the issues and the conversation.

I do not have any formal arts training, for many ideas that may be for you very basic, are things I'm discovering.  However, I am fortunate to be married to an artist, and in seeing her work, going to the art shows, and discussing art with her and her circle of other artists, I'm soaking up a lot of stuff that otherwise I'd have been completely oblivious to.  I'm sure what I "know" is full of holes and probably quite a bit of misunderstanding, but hey, that's life and the learning challenge.

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


----------



## unpopular (Apr 2, 2015)

Just because people don't "get it" doesn't make it "not art". Art is not about communication, it is about exploration.

If we can accept that each others' images are our way of understanding ourselves, our perception and our world around us, it becomes much easier to be respectful and accepting of each others' work.

Not to say that I always uphold that or that i'm always respectful.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 2, 2015)

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


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 2, 2015)

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. It's not as if Kant or Duchamp has the last word on these things, of course, but these people, and others, thought long and hard about this and might, just possibly, have worked their way through a BIT more of the details than you did writing up your forum post on the subject.

You don't see people writing silly forum posts about the Nature of Peas or the Nature of Physics, but you do see it on Art. It's just one of those things.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 2, 2015)

bribrius said:


> 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.


----------



## unpopular (Apr 2, 2015)

Only us art school drop outs are real artists. As soon as I graduate on my third attempt, I'll be disqualified.

But, I'll have a BFA!


----------



## mishele (Apr 2, 2015)

bentcountershaft said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > who make real art and has real credentials here? We need the real slim shady to please stand up!
> ...


Hi!!


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 2, 2015)

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 (Apr 2, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> 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 (Apr 2, 2015)

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 (Apr 2, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> 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 (Apr 2, 2015)

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 (Apr 2, 2015)

unpopular said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Apr 2, 2015)

Derrel said:


> 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 (Apr 2, 2015)

bribrius said:


> 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 (Apr 2, 2015)

unpopular said:


> 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 (Apr 2, 2015)

bentcountershaft said:


> 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 (Apr 2, 2015)

Derrel said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Apr 2, 2015)

unpopular said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > 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!!
> ...


Thankyou!


----------



## unpopular (Apr 2, 2015)

bribrius said:


> 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 (Apr 2, 2015)

unpopular said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Putting you subject dead center is the standard basic level of composition for portraits is it not?
> ...


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.


----------



## unpopular (Apr 2, 2015)

My fav photos of my son. Note the cropped forehead and dead centering evokes the sense of energy and intensity of a three year old in mid-jump.


----------



## Designer (Apr 2, 2015)

Derrel said:


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





bribrius said:


> Not sure i agree with the highlighted.


Agree or not agree, they are there for you.

Sometimes centering works, and sometimes negative space works.  It all depends.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 2, 2015)

unpopular said:


> My fav photos of my son. Note the cropped forehead and dead centering evokes the sense of energy and intensity of a three year old in mid-jump.


cute kid.  You could run into the same with anything leaving the frame. You could shoot a street scene with a car leaving the frame and someone would comment that you need to crop or work on framing. Not contemplating if the fact something is leaving the frame in motion may add to the scene (especially moving traffic on a street). Just short sighted thinking imo.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 2, 2015)

pgriz said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > And then, finally, the elephant in the room: you gotta have taste. none of the systems work in the absence of taste.
> ...



_A man of great common sense and good taste, meaning thereby a man without originality or moral courage._
-- Walter Besant

_It is good taste, and good taste alone, that possesses the power to sterilize and is always the first handicap to any creative functioning._
-- Salvador Dali

My favorite observation concerning taste comes from the late Molly Ivins:
_...As though the fact that reading The Three Musketeers were a menace to Dante. I have felt the sting of their snotty scorn, the lash of their haughty sneers, and what I have to say is, "You Are Just Another Sticky Wheel on the Grocery Cart of Life."_

Good taste at any given time is whatever the disingenuous find fashionably in vogue that permits them to mask their sterile narcissistic existence behind a facade of superiority.

Joe


----------



## bribrius (Apr 2, 2015)

Designer said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I think *the elements and principles of design *are the things the beginning art photographer needs to study.
> ...


Remember the negative space used in the portrait of the bride against the stone wall? Made her look small and less significant. I liked that shot. Again though that is varying far off from standard portraiture to say something else.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 2, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> Good taste at any given time is whatever the disingenuous find fashionably in vogue that permits them to mask their sterile narcissistic existence behind a facade of superiority.
> 
> Joe



This is better than any of the quotes you posted.


----------



## pgriz (Apr 2, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > photoguy99 said:
> ...



Perhaps it is my obtuse nature, but it appears those definitions are almost circular.  And from your usage, apparently "good taste" is the sop that the hoi-polloi use to justify their choices.

My wife makes it easy for me.  She lets me know what she considers in good taste, and most of the time, I end up agreeing with her.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 2, 2015)

It's easier to discern bad taste than it is good taste in my experience.

I've never met a photographer worth their salt who thought white vignettes look good.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 2, 2015)

On the ends of the spectrum are good taste and bad taste. In the middle is the vast majority which have no taste at all. Since the vast majority has not taste at all they can't differentiate between the ones on either end of the spectrum.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 2, 2015)

'Taste' and 'good taste' are, interestingly, completely unrelated things.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 2, 2015)

bentcountershaft said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Good taste at any given time is whatever the disingenuous find fashionably in vogue that permits them to mask their sterile narcissistic existence behind a facade of superiority.
> ...



Thanks, that's what I tell my students to prepare them to deal with the fine-art world.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 2, 2015)

Strawberries taste good.

Joe


----------



## Designer (Apr 2, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Remember the negative space used in the portrait of the bride against the stone wall? Made her look small and less significant. I liked that shot. Again though that is varying far off from standard portraiture to say something else.


Negative space is not the same in every composition.  It can be used well or not well.  

There is no "formula" or "rule" for using any of the elements of composition.  

You can't simply choose to apply a "rule" to some random composition and call it good.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 2, 2015)

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


----------



## unpopular (Apr 2, 2015)

Composition is not art. Composition is the means by which visual art is created. Using the language analogy, it's like grammar and context.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 2, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> 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 (Apr 2, 2015)

pgriz said:


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



Agreed.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 2, 2015)

pgriz said:


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





sleist said:


> 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 (Apr 3, 2015)

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 (Apr 3, 2015)

_"Good taste is the enemy of creativity" 
_Pablo Picasso


----------



## bribrius (Apr 3, 2015)

Torus34 said:


> 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.]
> 
> ...


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 (Apr 3, 2015)

bribrius said:


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


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


----------



## bribrius (Apr 3, 2015)

Designer said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Once you crush the facade it pretty much goes down hill.
> ...


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 (Apr 3, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Torus34 said:
> 
> 
> > Taste -- and my post #18:
> ...




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 (Apr 3, 2015)

Forkie said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Torus34 said:
> ...


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 (Apr 3, 2015)

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 (Apr 3, 2015)

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 (Apr 3, 2015)

Designer said:


> 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 (Apr 3, 2015)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> 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.
> ...





Derrel said:


> 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.
> 
> ...





unpopular said:


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



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 (Apr 3, 2015)

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.


----------



## acparsons (Apr 3, 2015)

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 (Apr 3, 2015)

acparsons said:


> 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 (Apr 3, 2015)

acparsons said:


> 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 (Apr 3, 2015)

acparsons said:


> 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 (Apr 3, 2015)

Ysarex said:


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



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


----------



## bribrius (Apr 3, 2015)

i'm confused.


----------



## pgriz (Apr 3, 2015)

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 (Apr 4, 2015)

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 (Apr 4, 2015)

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 (Apr 4, 2015)

Designer said:


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


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


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 4, 2015)

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 (Apr 4, 2015)

acparsons said:


> 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 (Apr 4, 2015)

unpopular said:


> 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 (Apr 4, 2015)

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 (Apr 4, 2015)

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.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 4, 2015)

unpopular said:


> 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 (Apr 5, 2015)

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 (Apr 5, 2015)

@ 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 (Apr 5, 2015)

@ 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 (Apr 5, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> 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 (Apr 5, 2015)

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 (Apr 5, 2015)

Soocom1 said:


> 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 (Apr 5, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> > Breaking them is fine. Just *don’t expect your audience to grasp what your trying to do.*
> ...


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 (Apr 6, 2015)

"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 (Apr 6, 2015)

unpopular said:


> "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 (Apr 6, 2015)

unpopular said:


> "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 (Apr 6, 2015)

bribrius said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > "a load of crap" being my assertion that art is a dialogue, or Soocom's assertion that art is a message?
> ...



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 (Apr 6, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> > Breaking them is fine. Just *don’t expect your audience to grasp what your trying to do.*
> ...


Then you miss the point of what I was saying.


----------



## Designer (Apr 6, 2015)

Soocom1 said:


> 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 (Apr 6, 2015)

Designer said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> > Breaking them is fine. Just don’t expect your audience to grasp what your trying to do.
> ...


No argument there. 

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


----------



## bribrius (Apr 6, 2015)

[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]I like more historical. Consider the selective color.  Selective color meets the requirements for throwing off the composition. It attracts the eye more easily to a subject. As a tool, it works and was very well received by most. I myself like selective color to a extent (just not on serious work). The audience clearly enjoyed/enjoys it so experience it just fine. Selective color makes your job easier in creating a work. So what is wrong with it? It never quite gained legitimacy as it was doubted it would stand the test of time. People started considering it a fad. Does selective color belong is serious works of art? At its peak, some may have believed it was a legitimate tool. Instances like this call in to question the audiences merit. As peoples tastes change and fads to come and go. I believe the audiences experience always is inferior. The artists vision and rendering comes to completion upon completion of the work. It is fixed, does not change. Unmoving. The audiences experience and thoughts on that work does change, as the audience changes whether one individual to the next looking at the piece or one generation to the next. Why i never understood why so much weight was ever put on the audience (unless you are dealing with paid work).  Along with that we have quotes like "art is made for its generation" but then near opposite "true art stands the test of time". Well which is it?


----------



## Soocom1 (Apr 6, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> > Breaking them is fine. Just *don’t expect your audience to grasp what your trying to do.*
> ...


its whatever you want it to be.


----------



## KenC (Apr 6, 2015)

I agree with those who've said that it is a bad idea to push "rules" with beginners.  Whichever "rule" you pick, there are many images out there in museums and books that don't follow it, so why would we want to handcuff someone that way?

However, it's the basic effects of different choices that help us to explain why something works or not, e.g., it matters where things are in the frame and their relation to other objects in the frame and what effect this has, lines are important in directing attention or creating mood (ditto for color and tone), line and position may create a path through the image which makes it more effective, etc.

It's important to know how to think about and talk about an image.  If you read some of the classic books on composition they don't give you rules, just basic principles that help in understanding an image.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 6, 2015)

hey i am swapping out my nicad batteries in my tools for the lithium ion. No problems there. I am wondering though if the higher capacity lithiums are worth double the price tag. Just batteries to run drills, circular saw, hammers, that kind of thing. Anyone know if the higher capacities are worth the extra bucks? And how much better are they at slow draw when sitting for periods?


----------



## Derrel (Apr 6, 2015)

We have millions of people who call comic books* graphic novels*, and yet there is just enough awareness of artistic standards that a gimmick like selective color never gained acceptance. 'MURICA!!!


----------



## bribrius (Apr 6, 2015)

Say Something The Secret Behind Making Great Art.


if Ken says it you know it must be true.


----------



## Designer (Apr 6, 2015)

Derrel said:


> .. there is just enough awareness of artistic standards that a gimmick like selective color never gained acceptance.


I've seen some that I liked, having been particularly well done, but I don't like all of it.


----------



## SurvivalDad (Apr 6, 2015)

I do think "graphic novels" is a bit extreme of a description. Almost like saying that playing soccer is just jogging about a bit. Not the same caliber.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 6, 2015)

they have all suffered the same fate. Same with comic strips. I don't even think any of it is hand drawn anymore. So the older material would probably be worth a lot more.  Seems i watched something on disney cartoons being created of similar nature. Used to be more hand drawn, labor intensive. Now computer animation. The hand drawn ones are probably the ones you might want to collect if you are looking for something that might hold or gain value. And well, characters, issue or edition, year. All these things factor in.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 6, 2015)

SurvivalDad said:


> I do think "graphic novels" is a bit extreme of a description. Almost like saying that playing soccer is just jogging about a bit. Not the same caliber.


comic book prices can go into the thousands of dollars.  some of the original disney work, thousand and thousands.  Dont let anyone kid you.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 6, 2015)




----------



## bribrius (Apr 6, 2015)

Derrel said:


> View attachment 98307


inside the box ?


----------



## bribrius (Apr 6, 2015)

Can Comic Books Be Considered Serious Art - Pencils.com


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 6, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Can Comic Books Be Considered Serious Art - Pencils.com



What about non-serious art?

Joe


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 7, 2015)

I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death already, but I'm not willing to get caught up on every post. 

I consider my photography art, and I make my art based on the things that I like. I get that there are "rules" to photography, but I prefer to make my own rules on how I express my esthetic through a photograph. I actually found that I hated my work when all I could do was make sure I was following all of these "rules" that other photographers (from forums, facebook, etc) were trying to beat into my head. Eventually I realized my art was suffering because I didn't enjoy it anymore, but once I stopped listening to those voices saying what white balance was best or what lighting I had to use, or which way I had to edit, or that my exposure had to be a certain way in order to be "right", I started enjoying my art again and I finally started seeing improvements that I was proud of. 

I think each person creates differently. Some people do best by following rules, and others don't. I choose not to follow rules in photography that I dislike. I encourage others to do the same. I also have ZERO education in the arts or with photography. I'm all self taught, but that doesn't somehow mean that I have no right to make my rules. The notion that someone must always know what rule they are breaking and why they're breaking it is absurd when it comes to visual self expression. I firmly believe that an artist should simply follow the path they want to.


----------



## Solarflare (Apr 7, 2015)

Art, to me, is defined as "creativity". *Any* form of creativity is thus art. And as such, photography is definitely a creative challenge and thus definitely art.

On the other hand, I do not care if something is "serious" art or not. For example, I know a lot of "video games" that to me are pieces of art. That is, they display an impressive amount of creativity. But I strongly doubt any of these will ever be considered "serious art" no matter how high their quality would be.

So to me the question if something is "serious art" is like asking if a movie got academy awards. Theres plenty of movies with academy awards that I think are completely forgettable and many of my favorite movies never got any academy award. Heck some of the greatest actors of all times never got an award, for example Marilyn Monroe. A movie has just to be of the "wrong" genre to seriously reduce its chances for academy awards. Does it make these movies less of a piece of art ? I dont think so.


----------



## Designer (Apr 7, 2015)

DanOstergren said:


> The notion that someone must always know what rule they are breaking and why they're breaking it is absurd ..


Try not to make "the rules" any more than they are.  

I think in most cases the more successful artists simply create a composition without any conscious recognition of any "rules".  They have developed their artistic ability over time and through an educational process, whether it is formally administered or in self-education.  

Additionally, their own selection process comes into play when "liking" one particular photograph enough to spend some time with it in post-capture editing and manipulation.  Recognizing when something "clicks" is key to presenting one's own best efforts.

My reason (and presumably other people's reasons) for writing anything about learning and breaking the rules is to encourage artists to continue exploring and learning.


----------



## JoeW (Apr 7, 2015)

acparsons said:


> 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.


Actually, this photo is a superb example of a number of rules (or guidelines or principles) of visual design/photography/art.
1.  Use of limited DoF to emphasize/direct focus.
2.  Emerging (ie: cut-off or only partially seen images) to help direct focus and/or create a feel or effect to a shot.
3.  Use of blur (in this case, the smoke) to help show movement or make a picture more dynamic (people achieve a similar result with panning).
4.  Use of color to direct focus and grab attention (the white smoke....brighter objects grab our attention, the blurred circles in the middle of the smoke).
5.  Leading lines (no formal line draw but a great instance where the man's eyes take us to the middle of the smoke and the circles).
6.  The dynamics of portrait vs. landscape mode and the choice to go with portrait.
7.  Use of shadow to create character and texture (in the man's skin).
8.  How the focal point follows the rule of thirds.
And of course I'm leaving out about another 20-30 rules about color, lines, exposure, and so on.

Frankly, I'd say you've done a damn fine job of following the rules with this picture.  Understanding these rules/principles/guidelines (whatever in the heck we want to call them) helps to explain why this is such a compelling and effective photo and why it's art (as opposed to a snapshot).

You mentioned that you cutoff the head and that breaks a rule.  Yes it does.  And there's also a rule that you show only part of a person can convey movement or direct focus (as the person walks out of the photo or as in this case we follow their gaze).  There's a rule about making pictures sharp and distinct and yet there are also rules about how a lack of sharpness can convey movement or mood to a picture.

Look, you can't follow all of the rules all of the time b/c they conflict.  If you don't like the word "rules" than call them "design principles."  You can't simultaneously use color and be all monochrome.  You can't simultaneously be landscape and portrait.  What being an artist is about is not being in the right place at the right time and effectively capturing reality.  It's about choosing which principles/rules to emphasize. And that's why this is an art and not a craft.  If you had chosen to make the man the focus of the shot (rather than the act of smoking or the cigarette smoke) than cutting off his head and body were a bad artistic choice in most cases.  But if you'd gotten a full body shot including all of his head and his arm, it would have probably been a pretty boring shot of a man with his back to the camera (ho hum) rather than the magic of the smoke over the blurred colors (far more interesting) and the implied movement of the smoke from his mouth to the air communicated to us by his focus.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 7, 2015)

be a lot easier if you could stage all your photos. Then you can put what you want where you want it. Like in a movie, actors, built sets etc. etc.  Imagine the opportunity when you could control everything in the photo at your whim. Short of that thinking. I spend more time taking snapshots than making art. Just how i roll.


----------



## Overread (Apr 7, 2015)

Bribrius you can - its what studio photographers do all the time. Heck you can even do it outside as well - sometimes you need lots of equipment and assistants and skilled models and such and also the right daytime conditions - its all doable - however the more complex it gets the more expensive.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 7, 2015)

Overread said:


> Bribrius you can - its what studio photographers do all the time. Heck you can even do it outside as well - sometimes you need lots of equipment and assistants and skilled models and such and also the right daytime conditions - its all doable - however the more complex it gets the more expensive.


out of my league $$$$$$. I would love to spend two months planning a single shot though, just to see if i could come up with a masterpiece. The opportunity would be amazing. Almost like painting, but putting on the canvas what i want in real life. Making a entire scene, for real.


----------



## Designer (Apr 7, 2015)

It doesn't have to cost a fortune.  Just do a simple still life.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 7, 2015)

JoeW said:


> acparsons said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



This is a good example of how 'Rules' develop.
People look at a successful image and try to abstract a set of Rules from the image that can be applied generally.
I think the reality is that contradictory rules can be abstracted from any set of successful images so the underlying truth is that the way successful pictures get created is so ambiguous that any attempt to make a rule that pertains 100% and all the time will fail.

Some people have 'it.'
Some people can be educated and trained to have 'it'.
Unfortunately many people don't have 'it', can't get 'it' and so end up copying what others have done so they essentially fake 'it'.


----------

