A Brief History of Rules of Composition

[Josh66]

Just wanted to point out that photography is fundamentally different than every other form of art in that composition is mostly subtractive in photography (you need to get rid of the irrelevant clutter that exists in the world but is thematically unimportant), whereas painting, drawing, etc. are mostly additive (you start with a clutter free white sheet of paper, and you add only things that are important).

I've never thought of it that way before, but it makes a lot of sense.

 

[leeroix]

im gonna read this later. its late...

 

[amolitor]

I noted my source, right down to a page #. Perhaps you could note some of yours.

Um, actually, I can't, because my point is roughly that there are no sources. Prior to about, let's be conservative and say 1925, there is no mention of many of the rules that get tossed around in photographic composition.

Rebutting this is easy. Go find one.

 

[tirediron]

Um, actually, I can't, because my point is roughly that there are no sources. Prior to about, let's be conservative and say 1925, there is no mention of many of the rules that get tossed around in photographic composition.

Okay, I'll assume this to be true... why does it matter? That's almost 90 years ago; photography has changed a bit in 90 years, as have the moods, tastes and perceptions of the general public. It makes perfect sense to me that "rules" had to be made, and I would say that the period when photography was taking off as a hobby would have been a perfect time.

 

[amolitor]

Just wanted to point out that photography is fundamentally different than every other form of art in that composition is mostly subtractive in photography (you need to get rid of the irrelevant clutter that exists in the world but is thematically unimportant), whereas painting, drawing, etc. are mostly additive (you start with a clutter free white sheet of paper, and you add only things that are important).

Thus, there's sort of a good reason why photographers would worry more about where to stick a subject in an often inevitably busier scene, whereas other artists can stick it anywhere and just conveniently fill in whatever the perfect lighting or angles WOULD be to make that particular location work (but which a photographer would never encounter and thus can't rely on)

This is an excellent point. To say the same thing with perhaps a different slant: photographers are more subject-obsessed than other artists. A painter puts nothing unimportant onto the canvas. If it's not important, it's just not there. Some things are dominant, some things are subordinate, but everything on the canvas pulls together.

Here's another interesting point: the same is true of many really good photographs. Everything in the frame, no matter how trivial, is important and works with everything else.

 

[amolitor]

Um, actually, I can't, because my point is roughly that there are no sources. Prior to about, let's be conservative and say 1925, there is no mention of many of the rules that get tossed around in photographic composition.

Okay, I'll assume this to be true... why does it matter? That's almost 90 years ago; photography has changed a bit in 90 years, as have the moods, tastes and perceptions of the general public. It makes perfect sense to me that "rules" had to be made, and I would say that the period when photography was taking off as a hobby would have been a perfect time.

It matters for at least three reasons:

First, not all the time but altogether too frequently things like the rule of thirds are trotted out as ancient rules long used by painters. That's just false, and I object to falsehoods.

Second, these simple rules tend to replace more complicated material that actually was developed over hundreds of years because it works, and it still works. Even my brief dip into 19th century ideas has removed the scales from my eyes as it were, and I abruptly have a much better understanding of why many pictures work. It's been very interesting.

Third, these rules are overly complicated and overly restrictive for the benefit they bring to people's photographs.

It is by no means a bad thing to tell the newbie "I think you'll like your pictures better if you stop putting the subject in the middle". You've given them a genuinely helpful tip, and their pictures will improve. If you say "artists for centuries have relied on the rule of thirds" you've told them something untrue, you have given them a slightly less helpful tip, and you have placed them in an unnecessary mental box which will take a little effort to escape from. Their next 1000 pictures will look exactly the same as one another.

These are not earth shattering things, they're pretty minor. Pedagogy is an interest of mine, though.

 

[tirediron]

It matters for at least three reasons:
First, not all the time but altogether too frequently things like the rule of thirds are trotted out as ancient rules long used by painters. That's just false, and I object to falsehoods.

I object to them as well, but a quick Google Image search of "old masters" showed me that a great many of the images from 14 century onward seemed to follow the same sort of compositional guidelines we do now, that is, a single person portrait is usually more or less centred, and scenes with multiple subjects have them placed roughly on a 3x3 grid.

Second, these simple rules tend to replace more complicated material that actually was developed over hundreds of years because it works, and it still works. Even my brief dip into 19th century ideas has removed the scales from my eyes as it were, and I abruptly have a much better understanding of why many pictures work. It's been very interesting.

Could you elaborate on this? I'd be very interested in learning more (Note: That is NOT sarcasm).

Third, these rules are overly complicated and overly restrictive for the benefit they bring to people's photographs.

I would submit that largely depends on who presents the "rule" and how they present it.

It is by no means a bad thing to tell the newbie "I think you'll like your pictures better if you stop putting the subject in the middle". You've given them a genuinely helpful tip, and their pictures will improve. If you say "artists for centuries have relied on the rule of thirds" you've told them something untrue, you have given them a slightly less helpful tip, and you have placed them in an unnecessary mental box which will take a little effort to escape from. Their next 1000 pictures will look exactly the same as one another.

Again, I think a lot depends on how things are explained. I think that while the term "Rule of thirds" is a relatively recent one, the concept of placing major elements of a scene on a grid has in fact been around for centuries. Like anything, I'm sure there were periods when it was more in fashion and others when it was less so.

I think (and bear in mind that aside from high school, which was a *cough* *cough* few *cough* years ago, I have absolutely NO art education) that the fault may lie not so much in the concepts, but rather in the fact that their explanations have become over-simplified over time. I personally strongly object to the use of the word "rule" as in, "Rule of thirds", and when I do use it, I always try to point out that 'though it's called a "rule", it is fact nothing more than a compositional guideline.

 

[amolitor]

There are actually two things called a "rule of thirds". One of them divides the canvas into thirds and guides layout, visual masses may be placed inside thirds. "one third land, two-thirds sky, or vice versa" has been a maxim of landscape painting since the eighteenth century, at least. This is really mostly about proportion and balance, and it's been around for a while. The "put the subject ON the line, or the intersection of lines" (which is arguably the exact opposite of of the older rule, note) is the modern one.

Nineteenth century composition in two lines or less?

First, let me recommend Henry Peach Robinson's "Pictorial effect in photography" available for free from books.google.com. It was my first, and it's directly aimed at translating ideas from painting for photographers (albeit b&w glass plate photographers using very very slow orthochromatic emulsions). Google up the paintings he refers to as you read. You'll find fascinating and amusing references to "these damned fauxtographers and their easy to use dry plates are ruining portraiture" as well.

Second, a few hints and samples. A prominent line sloping in one direction should be opposed and balanced by another line sloping in the opposing direction, approximating a triangular shape. This creates a sense of visual stability (always assuming you want it, which maybe you don't). A dark mass may be balanced by a light mass; large may be contrasted and balanced by small; straight by curved. Unity can be aided by connecting contrasting elements with a common one: connect a dark mass to a light one by placing a small spot of light within it, and vice versa. Unity can be created by repeated/echoed shapes, colors, and lines. Unity is desirable but not to the extent of being boring, it must be salted with variety, to taste, to be interesting.

That's some rough ideas, anyways. It makes a lot more sense when you're looking at examples.

 

[tirediron]

:thumbup:

 

[Overread]

I think those artistically minded really need to get together on the site and come up with a list of books/websites/references. The biggest problem with these discussions is that most every level photography books/websites and (sadly) forums are addicted to just the most common "rule of thirds" and similar and if they go in depth they only do so to mention that "there is this golden rule thingy too".

It's clear that compositional artistry and teaching is a very weak element for many self taught photographers which seriously hobbles these discussions - and as Amolitor is showing here - leaves us very open to being side tracked down the "its all new" line where upon its only when you scratch the surface that you find the subtle differences between the modern interpretation and adaptations and the older established concepts and such.

 

[Buckster]

So, nobody formally put the names we use today for these "rules"/guidelines in any books you could find until within the last century. Okay.

Still, when we look at compositions going all the way back to the Renaissance, we see them being employed, meaning that they were understood and used and carried over from generation to generation by artists for hundreds of years.

You wrote your piece as though these "rules"/guidelines didn't exist at all before the modern era, but that's simply not true, as verified by art itself going back at least to the Renaissance. Art styles during the Renaissance where much of modern compositional theory was developed happened over time from about the year 1400 to 1500. We're only talking about the last 500 years or so since it was more formally worked out in the art community, where it was certainly picked up on and expounded on and used, whether formally written about in today's terms and wording and shortcut descriptions or not.

Who would have had an interest in libraries full of books on the subjects of formal composition that used the ideas, if not the modern terms we use, in the first place during that time? The printing press itself was only invented during that period, and books on formal composition apparently weren't at the top of the list of things the masses wanted to read or that writers wanted to produce. The common man for hundreds of years from then till the modern era toiled in his own fields to make a meager living, and most of them couldn't even read. He didn't spend his "leisure hours" painting and learning about compositional theory.

It's only in the modern era that huge sections of the population who don't make their living with art and never formally studied it have become interested in making it and studying it on their own, and have the means to do so. Until fairly recently, there simply wasn't a market for such books, so it's not hard to imagine why you can't find them.

If you want to find older references to these "rules"/guidelines that today have modern written descriptions formally assigned to them in books, look at the art itself for the past 500 years.

 

[amolitor]

If you want to find older references to these "rules"/guidelines that today have modern written descriptions formally assigned to them in books, look at the art itself for the past 500 years.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. It is in fact all there in the pictures, and this is how composition was taught for.. a long time at any rate. Look. At. The. Pictures. Then there's a bit of discussion of line and masses and balance and whatnot.

I will caution against the tendency to fit ideas to facts, however.

http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/teaching/maa/markowsky.pdf

is a pretty good rebuttal of a lot of received wisdom on The Golden Mean, and notably on page 5 describes what he calls (possibly Martin Gardener originated the term, I find the reference unclear) the "Pyramidology Fallacy" which is basically what one needs to be careful of when doing this sort of study.

 

[The_Traveler]

ust wanted to point out that photography is fundamentally different than every other form of art in that composition is mostly subtractive in photography (you need to get rid of the irrelevant clutter that exists in the world but is thematically unimportant), whereas painting, drawing, etc. are mostly additive (you start with a clutter free white sheet of paper, and you add only things that are important).

That's true if one ignores sculpture where an artist starts a large block of something reasonably hard and removes what isn't important.

 

[Designer]

I've posted before that the "rules" are merely shortcut methods of communicating complex ideas regarding composition.

The concepts of balance, tension, and others are difficult to understand simply by reading a couple of paragraphs of text.

 

[cgipson1]

I've posted before that the "rules" are merely shortcut methods of communicating complex ideas regarding composition.

The concepts of balance, tension, and others are difficult to understand simply by reading a couple of paragraphs of text.

Interpretation varies from reader to reader, as do comprehension skills! But the final image is what counts... all the talk in the world about photography, does not make one a better photographer! Not to say it can't help...