Jump to content

Square framing, centered subjects and symmetry in photography - the poor relatives?


Recommended Posts

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2347092"><em>Arthur Plumpton</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 25, 2010; 10:56 a.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>Gentlemen and ladies,</em></p>

 

<p><em>I must re-read more carefully your comments, but I am more than a bit surprised that few are interested in pursuing the philosophical aspects of the square, or the centered subject, or symmetry, in photography.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur,<br>

Symmetry has its place in design, but that's all been covered in books on the subject.<br>

As I've eluded to before, the square is not a very aesthetically pleasing shape.<br>

That's why hipsters use the term to describe "dull".</p>

<p>What's to philosophize?</p>

<p>It's like bad grammar. Sure you can use it, but there are far better choices there too.</p>

<p>What am I missing here?</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<blockquote>

<p>"What am I missing here?" <strong>--William</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Challenge, intrigue, curiosity.</p>

<p>When Tchaikovsky was told his Piano Concerto would not be aesthetically pleasing to most (he was told the many passages consisting of strings of bold, somewhat unyielding chords were repetitive, "boring," unacceptable, they didn't move enough), he went further with his exploration of the kind of bombast, flourishes, and holding patterns of chords that were not previously accepted. Artists feel and understand and build on aesthetics to create new aesthetics.</p>

<p>Artists tend not to generically rule things out as being boring or not pleasing. They will, of course, find specific photographs and paintings boring and they will give their own thought-out reasons for doing so, or they will say it's simply a matter of taste. They may even notice patterns of what's causing stuff to be boring. Artists will often take up the challenge to create something out of what others find boring, to break just that pattern that opens their eyes rather than close their minds. That can be part of the contrivance aspect of art. While others are accepting conclusions, artists are playing with possibilities.</p>

<p>I think Arthur is asking us to look at possibilities.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"Your use of the square format presupposes a thorough knowledge of design principles"</p>

<p>Not necessarily. I started shooting square pictures when I bought a square format camera. I just tend to compose to whatever format camera I'm using. I certainly don't have a "thorough knowledge of design principles". Maybe an ignorance of principles worked in my favour because I didn't know that what I was doing was "difficult". It was just another shape to fill.</p>

<p>Regards</p>

<p>Alan</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"The thing that has concerned me the most over the last 4 years that I have hung around these sites has been what appears to be a reticence to actually study these things, mostly taught in 'irrelevant' art classes not photography classes, but to cling to the "rules" read in a basic book on photography."<br /> <strong>--John A</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with you that things we learn and study about art and our craft are not at all irrelevant and I often see people, especially in PN's critique forum, suggesting that learning will stifle their artistic sensibility. That attitude seems as nonsensical to me as it seems to be to you.</p>

<p>When I talked about art school "lemmings," I certainly didn't mean anyone who goes to art school. I meant only the lemmings, who recite but don't question and who don't allow themselves to think out loud or explain themeselves. I'm talking about those who use what they learn as an end instead of a tool, those who put periods or exclamation points on discussions instead of opening them. Some simply use their credential as an art school student to justify what they say without also giving their own explanations and talking about the practical usages of these things. So I do find William's calling squares "boring" and then explaining (NOT) that by saying he went to art and design school, it's an accepted aesthetic conclusion, and his father was also an artist, totally lacking in substance. A dialogue ensues when we've internalized what we've learned, made it our own, experienced it for ourselves, and can talk about it in complete sentences. (Something, by the way, John, which you have done.) I have two degrees in Philosophy. If someone asks me if I think I have free will or whether my actions, instead, have been determined, I'd get thrown out of any philosophical discussion if I said we have free will because I studied Philosophy for eight years at universities in New York and San Francisco. <em>I</em> would be asked to bring something to the table. And I would.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Arnheim talks about the visual centers in compositions. A work may have a primary center and secondary center(s); or it may have multiple primary centers that create a visual center for the work. He uses "Gourds" by Henry Matisse as an example of a work with multiple visual centers. In his book "Art and Visual Perception" he talks about different shapes in art (square, rectangle, circle, ellipse, etc.), and his conclusion is that each shape reacts differently to the visual pull of gravity (which is also related as vectors in "The Power of the Center) - and that no shape is better than another - just that they each have their own inherent qualities that need to be taken into consideration in a composition.</p>

<p>The classic rules of composition are an attempt to codify and provide a short cut to some of these compositional concepts. While the rules of composition may be a stylistic convention, they are a dehydrated method of composition. Composition cannot be governed by numeric ratios so that it is reliably predictable along a geometrically perfect path. Compositional order should be through the intuition of the artist so that any relation to an underlying structural key (e.g. grid system used in the rules of composition) is replaced by a network of connections between the elements within the composition.</p>

<p>There are also valuable compositional concepts found in Arthur W. Dow's book "Composition: Understanding Line, Notan, and Color." The ideas found in this book deal with lines within the composition and dark-light relationships (Notan), and how to use color to balance compositions. There are also other compositional concepts such as "MA" which is used in Japanese composition and is the appreciation of the spaces between objects (visual centers). </p>

<p>When all of these different ideas are taken together, it becomes clear that you cannot declare a shape (in this case a square) as being boring as that is not an inherent quality of the shape, but of how it has been used. To put it into another context - short words in short sentences do not indicate a simple idea. Likewise, use of a square does not limit the richness of the composition, its use should reflect the richness of the mind behind the composition.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Robert Schultz</strong>, that's a wonderful exploration. Thanks for sharing your work here. I feel organized power. Not only is there an energy to your many geometries, there is a lot of textural nuance which informs and feeds the "composition."</p>

<p><strong>Arthur</strong>, you linked to Julie Blackmon's "body of work" in the other thread and, interestingly and perhaps fortuitously, her series of photos of children in black and white -- http://www.julieblackmon.com/Portfolio.cfm?nK=311 -- are all done with a square format. It seems she is intentionally exploring, aside from the significant emotional elements of the content and lighting, the relationships of her fairly graphically composed images to her square frame. I don't really want to critique her work, but I do want to recognize that she does seem to have created individual works that hold together, both in terms of content and style, and also in terms of choosing to go with a consistent format. Format, itself (consistent or not), will be one element in a body of work, particularly if format is consciously used.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've seen a lot of squares out there. I do tend to think that asymmetry is a big part of the reason horizontal and vertical frames are used more. You can make a different impact with a a rectangle. I think the biggest reason though is magazines and books- the way we read. You can get great spreads with 2 vertical shots or make one brilliant 2 pager with a horizontal- without sacrificing image- where with a square you can only do 2 images (1 per page). Commercial is what really drives the camera design. Painters can make whatever they want.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>The art of human perception has been studued quite extensively by psychologists.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's about the most useful thing anyone has said in this thread ;)</p>

<p>But more accurately, psychophysics, the <strong>science</strong> of human perception, has been studied mainly by hard scientists (neurobiologists, physiologists, mathematicians) rather than psychologists.</p>

<p>Centered subjects and square compositions are both psychophysical issues. Humans have the instincts of hunter/gatherers (I won't go into whether those instincts were evolved, or placed in us by a deity. They're just "there"). We scan scenes, continually. We only "lock" onto one subject while we plan an attack, defense, mating behavior, etc. so only a very powerful subject can hold our interest if centered. Center something uninteresting, and as soon as we make the decision that we're not going to pounce on it, run from it, care for it (in the context of our offspring) it's wrong. Centering tries to force a "lock" on something that doesn't merit it. So we transform the picture into an "object" and scan "outside" it.</p>

<p>And a square isn't a "visual scene", we scan along the brush line, we don't scan up nearly as high as the width of the scene we're scanning. So square compositions aren't "right", either. If something too tall captures our attention, we ask "where's the danger from above?" Squares (and vertical rectangles, like portraits) are never "scenes", they're always "objects" within a larger scene. They automatically send the viewer scanning outside the image. Maybe this is good, depending on the nature of the image. It's a good way to tone down an overly offensive or "newsy" image.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"I am not nearly as eloquent (I think) in writing as I am visually. So. I think it best that I respond with my most recent body of work, in which I have largely concerned myself with a centralized, precisely dichotomous depiction of architecture." (Robert)</p>

<p>Very fine B&W photography, Robert. Thanks for sharing it with us. You are an architect of the image. I like how you have used the center in many of your images. It makes the image here and immediate and balances the other elements of each composition. Many of your images show also a fine equilibrium of form, lighting, and surface.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"Centering tries to force a "lock" on something that doesn't merit it. So we transform the picture into an "object" and scan "outside" it." (Joseph)</p>

<p>I guess this may be true in some cases, Joseph, but is it generic to the centered composition? I rather think not, as there are instances in art and photography where the tension of opposing sides of an image are relieved by the central balance point or null point, others where the center depicts an equilibrium or focus of an overall scene and a reconciliation of sometimes disparate outriding elements, or portraits (I am thinking of the Krupps photo in his wartime Nazi aircraft factory) where centering and upwards lighting or equal side-lighting throw a lot of emotion or impact into the centered figure. The Krupps photo wouldn't be half as chilling or emotional if he had been placed off center, and with diagonal lighting. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"Artists will often take up the challenge to create something out of what others find boring, to break just that pattern that opens their eyes rather than close their minds. That can be part of the contrivance aspect of art. While others are accepting conclusions, artists are playing with possibilities." (Fred)</p>

<p>Absolutely. That is a fine description of the artistic pursuit. Steve's comment on the richness of the mind behind the composition, and not the frame constraints, as being the essential thing, is no doubt related to that. </p>

<p>At the same time, what Martin is saying about the particular case of the square and the magazine fomats and other constraints, in addition to the camera format constraints (Barnack used the motion picture frame because that was the film available for his 1912 prototype 35mm camera and he wanted also to create an"exposure meter" for motion picture films) is what the artist chooses to contend with, or not.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The psychology of perception has been carefully studied and the popularity of certain formats has been proven through studies of large groups of individuals given choices of shapes. As an example, one study dealt with horizontal width to height ratios, and what formats people liked the most for a horizontal rectangle and which for a vertical rectangle. A ratio of 3:4 (3 high / 4 wide) was preferred for horizontal rectangles and a ratio of 5:4 (5 high / 4 wide) for vertical rectangles. Squares, circles, etc. have also been studied and the psychology of their perception is equally as interesting.</p>

<p>This is the type of information that hard science! studies do not quantify and psychological studies do - and the information is every bit as pertinent to composition as the <strong>science!</strong> cited by Joseph as being so important. However, science! does not take into account likes or dislikes but only the physiological operation of the eye/brain system.</p>

<p>While the "hard science!" studies and theories about "psychophysical issues" are interesting, they do not factor in the thinking portion of perception and choices made as part of learned perception. Learned perception is evidenced by ideas and their use within a composition. For example, Chinese composition is different than Japanese composition which is different than Western composition. This has nothing to do with hard science! findings, but the affect of learned aesthetics that are inherently part of the society in which one is brought up.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>My very first camera -- that I began using when I was six or seven years old (I'm not sure exactly when), produced gorgeous little square 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 black and white pictures each and every one of which I thought was purely magical (the camera store that processed the film made contact prints with a nice fat white border). I did not like my the rectangular pictures that came out of my mother's grown-up 35mm camera.</p>

<p>I still find those pictures to be magical. Though it's surely partly nostalgia/sentimental value, I think it's also because I, for some reason, like a <em>little</em> square picture. Why the little-ness changes anything, I do not know.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=587835"><em>Joseph Wisniewski</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 25, 2010; 01:09 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>The art of human perception has been studued quite extensively by psychologists.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>That's about the most useful thing anyone has said in this thread ;)</em></p>

 

<p><em>But more accurately, psychophysics, the <strong>science</strong> of human perception, has been studied mainly by hard scientists (neurobiologists, physiologists, mathematicians) rather than psychologists.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>One of the most interesting and informative threads I've read in quite a while. I suggest eveyone read it in its entirety.<br>

Thanks Joseph.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2361079"><em>Fred Goldsmith</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 25, 2010; 11:29 a.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"What am I missing here?" <strong>--William</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Challenge, intrigue, curiosity.</em></p>

 

<p><em>When Tchaikovsky was told his Piano Concerto would not be aesthetically pleasing to most (he was told the many passages consisting of strings of bold, somewhat unyielding chords were repetitive, "boring," unacceptable, they didn't move enough), he went further with his exploration of the kind of bombast, flourishes, and holding patterns of chords that were not previously accepted. Artists feel and understand and build on aesthetics to create new aesthetics.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, changing patterns of chords is one thing, change the sides of a square all you want and you still end up with a square.</p>

<p>Boring.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=86165"><em>Steve Swinehart</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Jan 25, 2010; 12:25 p.m.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

<em>To put it into another context - short words in short sentences do not indicate a simple idea.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>True, but the text would be pretty boring.<br>

<em>Jill says E=mc squared. That's what Jill says.</em></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Likewise, use of a square does not limit the richness of the composition, its use should reflect the richness of the mind behind the composition.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can use 'em all you want.<br>

Nobody else does, and for good reason. The square shape is boring, rgeardless of the compostition within the borders.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3885114"><em>Julie Heyward</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 25, 2010; 02:11 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Why the little-ness changes anything, I do not know.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Julie, that's so true. An entire hobby world of "miniatures exists due to this. Doll houses, model railroads, etc.<br>

"Littleness" captures the imagination in strange ways.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Bill, while I agree squares can be very boring, a bit more elaborate than only the word "boring" wouldn't hurt. Even if there is consensus, what is that consensus based on, and why can't we challenge the consensus? Even if we reach the exact same conclusion as the consensus, the reasoning and insights along the way are the real meat of this forum.<br>

For several posts on this forum running, I keep coming back to Mondriaan... Here he is again. A lot of his works are square, but due to their orientation, it suddenly does not seem so dull anymore. Mostly, I think, because it introduces angles more explicitely as a normal square would do. 4 identical lines in perfect horizontal and vertical directions do not have tension, diagonals do - but a square framing does not prevent one from using diagonals or other implied shapes that can introduce a tension.</p>

<p><em>(Photographically, I never worked with a square format, and I can only imagine it's just a lot tougher to do since symmetry and squareness do easily yield rather boring compositions - but that may be my lack of experience. It just seems pretty hard to me.)</em></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Bill, I think I understand your point about boring squares. Recorded.</p>

<p>It is perhaps a valid point of one experienced practitioner of the art. I do also have a camera club acquantance of some years ago who explained why he no longer had any interest in entering the half yearly print and slide salon of the society. "I have done everything, there is nothing else to do." He no doubt believed that, but I do not think it represented a viewpoint of a curious artist. Julie's magical encounter with 2 1/4 square contact prints probably never occurred to my acquaintance.</p>

<p>Julie, just a small point about our human viewing field. I may have a particulaly round face that gives me a more squarely shaped peripheral vision than normal, so I perhaps tend to see the world in a rather even up-down, left-right scanning manner. Does that have any impact on my interest in the square format? Probably not much. I just enjoy the effect of the square, as the uninterested participant. My own interest goes beyond purely geometrical considerations.</p>

<p>When you present a composition within a portait or landscape frame, a small part of that communication is already based upon that choice. You may (or may not) be saying to the viewer "here is in some way how I feel about what you find within its borders". Of course, the many elements within the frame are more important, and will be interpreted so by the viewer, but you are in a small way still conditioning the viewer to approach your photo in a particular way. That may be intended, of course.</p>

<p>Whether that is important or not seemingly also depends upon the aspect ratio chosen, which if extreme can have greater impact on pre-conditioning of the viewer. Personally, there are not many images in the 1:3 or 3:1 formats that I find all that interesting. They appear often as more decorative than communicative, but I accept that if well done (varied content) they can be powerful. </p>

<p>The interesting point for me about the square is that it is neutral, and leaves the content with 100% of the action.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5189561"><em>Wouter Willemse</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 25, 2010; 02:51 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Bill, while I agree squares can be very boring, a bit more elaborate than only the word "boring" wouldn't hurt.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wouter, for starters, let me refer you to Joseph Wisniewski's entry earlier in this thread.<br>

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=587835"><strong>Joseph Wisniewski</strong></a><strong> </strong><a href="../member-status-icons"><strong><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></strong></a><strong>, Jan 25, 2010; 01:09 p.m.</strong><br>

Joseph offers some wonderful insights.<br>

<strong></strong></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>For several posts on this forum running, I keep coming back to Mondrian... Here he is again. A lot of his works are square, but due to their orientation, it suddenly does not seem so dull anymore.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wouter, you're right, so let's look at what's happening. To begin with, Mondrian is one of the few artists who did this kind of work.<br>

Why does his art work?<br>

First, the squares and rectangles are arranged correctly. The fact that many of the shapes are squares does not negate the composition. Mondrian uses lines to help guide you around the piece, thus adding to the composition.<br>

Second, because the colors are so intense that they overpower the square borders.<br>

Third, note that most of his works have white at some of the borders, which would blend in with the gallery walls, thus negating a "border".<br>

The work would then become an artistically arranged series of varios sized rectangles (some square, others not) on a gallery wall.<br>

Nothing square about that.<br>

Clever.</p>

<p>Bill P.<em></em></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=86165"><em>Steve Swinehart</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"></a><em>, Jan 25, 2010; 03:07 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>The square shape is boring, rgeardless of the compostition within the borders.<br />Bill P.</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

<p><em>Self limitation by self definition...</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>What are you trying to say here?</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p><em>Jill says E=mc squared. That's what Jill says.</em><br>

<em></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since this sentence is not indicating an idea in and of itself, but merely parroting an equation by Einstein - I fail to see how that relates to my statement that short words in a short sentence do not indicate a simple idea. </p>

<p>How about this sentence. "Energy equals the mass of an object times the speed of light squared"? That is a short sentence with short words that indicates an immense idea - in fact, it helped someone win a Nobel Prize in physics...</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...