Symmetry vrs. Asymmetry

Hey everyone,

This is my first post in the Forum, and if this question was brought up

already, I appologize and ask moderators to delete it (Frankly I checked all 11

pages in Google search for it, and didn't find any :).

 

Recently in a conversation with my mom, who is my mentor in art, the subject of

symmetry occured. We always have been different with her in this matter, I'm a

big fan of symmetry, straight and simple composition (architecture is my

favourite), and she is assymetry person. I noticed before how this concepts

rule our lives, but in the subject of photography it came up first time. That's

when I understood the power of it. For example, if I send her some of my shots

or links to the work that I like so we can discuss it (she lives in Russia and

I'm in SoCal, so we can communicate only by phone), she wouldn't be so

impressed with symmetry work, even though it could be very successful shot, but

when she sees asymmetry she'd be swept away, storm of emotions. And that's

where argument started, what is successful photo? Is that one with asymmetrical

lines or otherwise? What is more appealing to the human eye? Of course, I was

keeping my side, she was keeping hers, in the end we couldn't agree on any, and

that's why I wanted to ask you. What you think about this subject? Of course

personal preferances dictate the vision, but is there any cornerstone to this

issue? Say physiological or psychological specifications of human eye and

cognition?

<i>what is successful photo?</i><p>Everyone will have a different answer. Mine is one that I am willing to hang on the wall. Regarding symmetry vs asymmetry, we are talking about art. There is no right answer or wrong answer. Sometimes I like symmetrical compositions and at other times asymmetry, it depends on the subject, my mood, etc. What is better music? Britney Spears or classical? How do you judge better? Sales numbers? Opinions of music critics?

Of course it depends on the subject, but it seems that for most subjects, putting the centre of interest in the centre of the composition is something that can actually make the composition seem unbalanced, and often it should be put where we find it the most pleasing, at the golden mean - or according to the rule of thirds, which is a very rough approximation of it. <p>

If you look at photos and art in general, a symmetrical composition is the exception rather than the rule. It could be argued that if a symmetrical composition was most pleasing, that would have been the most dominant.<p>

Now, of course, people are all different, and what some consider art, others consider trash, and so some might have a preference for symmetry in their images, other for assymetry.<p>

 

So, regardless of what the average person might find the most pleasing, that could still mean that for one person, a symmetrical image is the most beautiful, and for someone else, an assymetrical. It's a matter of personal preference, and so there is no right or wrong. Neither is better than the other - only more or less dominant if you look at what people tend to like.<p>

The bottom line is that there is actually no point in arguing or disagreeing over something like this as long as you both make the standpoint that what is your personal view is the best also for others. You will have to agree to be different, otherwise it's a bit like walking up to someone telling them your god is better than theirs - and we have all seen what effects that can have on the world...

It's a complicated question, and I'll suggest just one of its many parts: symmetry (of certain things) is often desirable, but we may prefer to seek it out in a work of art rather than having it given to us.

When it comes to the psychological and physiological issue here, we are hard-wired to both appreciate symmetry and asymmetry. <p>

When we look for potential partners, we are able to discern the tiniest differences between a person's right side and their left, and we are physically drawn towards the most symmetrical. Tests have shown that symmetrical people have a better potential for physical fitness and staying healthy, so it's not just about looks.<p>

At the same time, it's not just about the symmetry, for we also look at the propositions of the human body, many of the measurements of which adhere to the golden mean in the relation 1 to 1.618 - and it's that asymmetry that we also have a tendency to find the most pleasing in our artwork.

It is probably possible to make a formula to mathematically analyse images to find out which is most likely to be most pleasing to a majority of people, but in the end, I think we should all enjoy what we find beautiful, pleasing or interesting in photos, art and other expressions of the human soul; and we should enjoy making those expressions, regardless of what others might think. <p>

We are all different as well as the same.

Well, of course I don't argue that asymmetrical images could be very much appealing, sometimes composition dictates to do so. But even in ancient Greece artists came up with perfect proportions on human body, Hakon, I believe the one you mentioned, and little divertion was considered a failure. I mean, even psycologicaly after meeting people first time we tend to like ones with a symmetrical face proportions rather then asymmetrical. I'm saying about the first reaction, of course, not an overall impression.

 

But again, it's all personal and tend to change from subject to subject.

When I talk about a mathematical formula, I'm not talking about the proportions of the human bod - obviously that is old news. I am talking about putting two photos side by side into the computer and it will mathematically analyse them to find which is the most pleasing.<p>

Anyway, as you will also notice, the Greeks knew the perfect proportions of the human body, but they didn't depict them symmetrically. So there is symmetry and asymmetry all at once.

Hakon, when I was writing my previous comment, I didn't see yours about mathematical measurements, only after posting it I notice that there is one more :) Sorry about confusion :)

I suppose that with regards to photographic composition, symmetry could be viewed as a

composition made with a rule of halves, and asymmetry as a composition made with the rule

of thirds.

A lot of my favourite pictures have the subject off to one side. Not always, though.

How do you feel the concept of dynamic symmetry fits in ?

'How do you feel the concept of dynamic symmetry fits in ?'

 

Dick, was your question addressed to me? If yes, I don't quite understand what you mean.

It is thought among some artists that symmetrical images make for somewhat boring compositions. For example, a butterfly photograph would exhibit bilateral symmetry and while the mirror image may be interesting and the lines, colors and patterns may be well gorgeous, it might not the most exciting or challenging composition. I don't happen to agree with this POV. I think mirror images (and images with radial symmetry such as a sunflower) can make very striking photographs if done well.

 

Hope this helps

Symmetry in relation to making an image is a tool...one of many obviously...but a tool. We use all the things we learn from the first time our eyes open...sometimes in an automatic fashion.

 

Even if you tried to make an image in a non-symmetrical manner...at some point you would fail. The edge of the rectangular print would eventually defeat you.

This is too far down the page for many to read but I do not buy into the issue of Symmetry vrs. Asymmetry.

 

For me all art has motion. Symmetry usually is static. To create motion a work needs to have contrasts. At the same time a work usually needs to be balanced.

 

errol

There is an interesting article in this months Digital Journalist that broaches this subject. In reality there is no 'better'...no more so than saying apples are a 'better' fruit than oranges. http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0711/ebits.html

Seems to me that many images (musical performances as well)rely more on tonality and texture than on symmetry/asymmetry to make their point.

 

But I don't think those factors alone make worthwhile images OR music.

 

I agree with what Hektor Javkin and Errol Young have hinted. It's like movement...but more about tension/release, like sex.

 

Neither symmetry nor asymmetry seem as significant as factors such as eros, shock, or fear. Think of a musical performance or image in which something monotonous or flowing (perhaps that's symmetrical) suddenly experiences something different, such as an explosion or a joke.

 

Classic jazz (bebop)has a very symmetrical format counts upon the improvisation in the middle...something seemingly asymmetrical that then returns to symmetry. There, building and then releasing the tension between symmetry and asymmetry result in applause. Maybe that kind of tension/release exists in images, as well.

Hey guys, thanks a lot for your thoughts.

So many opinions, and valueable points. I actually agree with many, it is qiute hard to say what's right and what's wrong (if any exist), and in many cases personal preferences make a final decision. And of course, specific composition demands specific format. I guess it's a question with no defenite answer.

I've always had a tendency to seek symmetry, and had to learn early on in photography to

consciously avoid it most of the time. Symmetry lacks tension, and tension is what often

draws people into photographs. That's not to say I don't shoot symmetrical, balanced photos.

Just that when I do, it a deliberate decision, not a default position.

Obviously it depends on the subject. I am with you I like symmetry. I like architectural photography mostly because of that. Sometimes it is great to get an interesting building to one side and really get some neat asymmetry but a lot of the time you want to let the building fill up the screen and really dominate. The truth of the matter is no matter what is said or what is decided in here the question of symmetry in photography is mostly one of tastes.

 

You asked about the psychology of asymmetry in photography and art. Many great artists have used asymmetry as a means of creating a story or tension or even balance as odd as that may sound to a symmetry freak. The golden mean has generally been regarded as the universal guide to aesthetics the guide all other aesthetics are based around. It is a formula based on a pattern; 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,etc. The rule of thirds is a crude easier to judge version of this. Basically it comes to lines at about 3/8ths. Much of Architecture and art from arguably as far back as the ancient Egyptians has been based around this idea not necessarily consciously.

 

There is another idea that we have a tendency to view things beginning at the top left and moving down and right as we go. Like the way we in the west read. I am not sure if our writing developed because of that tendency or if that tendency developed because of the way our writing developed but in theater if you are doing a monologue the ideal spot is slightly left of center. Photography theory and composition doesn't seem to exploit this as much but if you put stock in the idea that points of interest should be on the intersects of either the thirds or the golden mean then it could be argued that there is an order of importance to each intersect and each line. Which could be different depending on culture.

 

So really the idea is to symmetry or not to symmetry is a matter of story and impact. What do you want the photograph to say? What do you want to say about the subject? Asymmetry should be used properly and not statically and symmetry should try to avoid stagnancy. The argument could be made that always using symmetry and centering your subject you have a far greater likely hood of having a boring or static image that people will look at and go nice picture and walk away. Centering an subject really requires something to give it punch and tension.

Right, I agree with many of you on the subject that symmetry makes static composition and asymmetry creates motion. For example, I depply admire historical buildings and things of antiquety, and most of the time it's in the static state, so symmetry will fit, in my opinion, in that composition. Not always, though.

I don't think asymmetry creates motion so much as tension, and it may not create that for people who are well-educated (ie widely experienced) visually.

 

The Golden Mean and other theories are so drummed into so many of us, even as children, taken for granted so routinely, that anything else makes passive folks anxious... as with literature, theatre, or film that requires thinking or music that requires active listening.

...another factor...

If we focus on an individual or object with an unsophisticated SLR or rangefinder camera we will tend to locate the subject in the middle of the image because that's where the focus spot is located. This explains images in which feet are cut off, but there's plenty of sky :-)

I agree with John. Anytime I hear about 'rules' in photography/music/literature...to me that is just the starting point that the true artists begins at.