Symmetry vrs. Asymmetry

[jtk]

Bob, dang, we always seem agree on everything :-)

 

Maybe it's a rule.

[yulianast]

'...to me that is just the starting point that the true artists begins at.'

 

Can I humbly accept it as a compliment? :)

Frankly, I started to shoot with this camera (Nikon D80) just few months ago, before I didn't have good enough equipment (just a PAS cameras). But actually I grew up in artistic family, my father is an artist, new-age impressionist, from him I learned meaning of composition, his paintings never really seem to mean what they depict, there's always some meaning hiden beneath. And my mom is a graphic desiner, she tought me importance of little details. I actually tried myself in every single form of art, but somehow found my true self in photography. LOL, now I just need to learn some 'rules' and that's all to story. :))

[jtk]

IMO we don't find "true selves," we ARE "true selves."

 

We inevitably build something around ourselves that we define as ourselves...

 

...which makes us happy, or unhappy, or we never even bother to think about it.

[yulianast]

Interesting point.

But surrounding environment could be pretty influencing sometimes (I do keep the 'nurture' side in that endless debate :)).

And sometimes you do things, you like it, but then you do something else, and it sparks you, the same as with a people. You meet many new faces each day, but then one person just keep pupping in your head, and you seem can't stop think about her/him. Attraction? Passion? Love?

[jtk]

...neurosis?

[yulianast]

LOL, I appreciate your sence of humor :)

[david_senesac]

Frame symmetry is a subset of frame geometry. A given subject might be composed aestheticcally in a number of ways. Generally one could make a statement that compositions with good geometries are usually more visually aesthetic than those that are not. And likewise one could make a similar statement that compositions with good balance and symmetry tend to be more visually aesthetic than those that are not. And one could state that images making good use of the golden two-thirds rule of framing the primary subject in a frame tends to work better than those that offset the primary subject. However all those statements are relative while there is an enormous range of subjects and settings, each of which if composed using the above tendencies doesn't necessarily guarantee the best results. Thus one ought to keep in mind good compositional tendencies while also efficiently exploring other compositional possibilities as is practical before bothering to make a photograph. Often one can use imbalances in a composition to create visual tensions that bring two dimensional image capture a valuable dynamic. And images with some especially strong geometry elements can be so dominant that one ought to simply compose around those geometries for whatever works well.

 

Another issue is the perception of some art critics seems to be one a dislike for balance and symmetry as though such isn't creative, novel, or interesting enough to entertain them. I find such judgements valid if they represent such as their own personal preference but not as more generalized criticism if such is not likely to be shared by the average non-sophisticated audience. For example closeup images of a single flowers often work best with geometrical pleasant symmetrical compositions. However I've noticed that some critics seem to be at pains to accept such and thus one always sees their own work with imbalance and offsets. I would suggest that a more open minded balanced approach depending on the merits of each subject is a more worthwhile perspective.

 

...David

[allafranc]

I found your discution on simetry vs assimetry. My opinion is, that most of people like simetry as universal low and beauty. The most of them bealive that simetry exist in nature (and low). This is more a fiction as reality. Except in 'left brain' oriented people, such as technicians etc. So, the most of 'pure mathemathical estetics' of Renesance and baroque stile the simetry is prefered.

Not in antique Helada (Greece). They know the simetry, but they corect it. Our face isn't simetrical, our body is not simetrical (at all), the space betwin pilars in Greec temples is not the same at all. That is just a fiction.

If you practice simetry in your work, OK, you like tranquility, stability, order, tectonic constracure, peace etc. Your mom is perhaps just more sensitiv for diferencies, changes, dinamic etc.

The common practice in photo bla bla is simetry or so called 3/3. The Greecs talk about 'diferences in unity' or Golden edge ( 0,618 : 1 or 1,00 : 1,618 or 2:3:5:8:13:21 etc).

Looking at 'Discobolos? statue we can find out disaway with photography of atlet, usin disc to throw awway. Greec statue is composition of more diferent situations (kader's) during action.

and at the end: look to Roden 'philosofer' statue and find out dismis beatwen 'thinking man' and his body. great work!

Enjoy in your simetry. be happy.

kindly regards, franc

[jonathancharlesphoto]

IMHO this is part of a bigger question - about the semiotic significance of a range of design patterns which includes various forms of symmetry, not just mirrored-type horizontal and vertical symmetry but rotational, repeating and scaled symmetry. The eye/brain naturally looks for patterns in natural images as a way of understanding them and composed images that are rich in patterns are more engaging. The specific patterns can add powerful abstract and emotional messages to a picture.

 

Although there are "rules of composition" that try to describe these relations they are only a very rough guide and it's one of the interesting challenges for the artist to explore new ways of using them in your work.

[lynn_teague]

Following on Charles' comment, there are a variety of symmetries that have been defined in

mathematics and employed in art, anthropology, geology (especially crystallography),

physics, and other fields. The interesting point regarding the Russian mom's different

symmetry preference is that preferences for particular symmetries are often culturally

determined. An on-line search for Dorothy Washburn and Donald Crowe will turn up

references to some of the best work in the cultural roots of symmetry preferences.

[yulianast]

"....The interesting point regarding the Russian mom's different symmetry preference is that preferences for particular symmetries are often culturally determined....."

 

 

Well, then I must be adopted :), otherwise following your statement how preferences of dauther and mother could be different?

I don't see any connection between culture and such subject as symmetry vr. assymetry... But if we talking about Russians, then I'll say that culture is too big and rich to fit it into this narrow topic.

[yulianast]

"....IMHO this is part of a bigger question - about the semiotic significance of a range of design patterns which includes various forms of symmetry, not just mirrored-type horizontal and vertical symmetry but rotational, repeating and scaled symmetry....."

 

Actually, when I started this topic I ment exactly what you said. Not symmetry as mirrowed object, but also repetition of simly identical patterns.

 

And also, I know that symmetry in nature never the same, two flowers, for example, that look a like, with a close examination will be different, same as human face, I know that you always can find small differences. There also Greek temples were brought to attention, which pillars do not stay on the simular measures from each other.

But this minimalistic differences is not what I meant. If whole picture looks symetrical in pattern to me, then I say it symmetrical. Would symmetry even exist if we start measuring each millimetre of every single detail...

[lovcom_photo]

Why does placement of the primary element in a composition have to be such a compelling objective? You like it centered, or symetric. Mom likes if off-center, or assymetric.

 

The way I see it, both are required to make a photograph "successful". For some compositions, one benefits by applying symmetry. Others benefit with asymmetry.

 

So you see, no need to have to choose one or the other. Use both as required.

 

I will say however, that centered subjects are often over done, boring, and often show a lack of artistic thinking in the photographer. Now always, but often.

 

And what is the very first thing newbies do, but to center their subjects, yea? Off-center, assymetrical compositions, to my mind, are often more interesting, and often allow secondary elements to have more of a place in the composition.

 

Ever wonder why all the makers of DSLR's provide off-center focus points? Canon provides 45 FP's in their high-end bodies; Nikon just recently 51. Good reason for that ;-)