Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

<blockquote>

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

 

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly what I've said. You limit yourself by the definitions you set for yourself. In your case a you've defined the square as a boring compositional format - that self-definition limits your thinking and creativity. If you think a square is boring, then that's your personal self limitation. </p>

<p>I don't think a square format has any inherent quality to it - and it is up to the artist to use whatever format is chosen (square included) to the benefit of the work being created.</p>

<p>If you truly are an artist of any creativity, and I gave you the challenge of making an interesting painting or photograph in a square format, then you would use that format as a creative element and not an excuse to not be able to make something interesting.</p>

<p>Format is NOT a barrier to a creative mind.</p>

<p>The square format did not limit the work of Piet Mondrian and Josef Albers - they used it to reinforce the composition.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<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; 03:21 p.m.</em></p>

 

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

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

 

<p><em>I fail to see how that relates to my statement that short words in a short sentence do not indicate a simple idea.</em></p>

<strong></strong></blockquote>

<p>That's not what I said.<br>

What I said was.......<br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

<strong><em>"True, but the text would be pretty boring."</em></strong></p>

<p>I hope that clears it up for you.</p>

<p>Bill P.<br>

<strong><em></em></strong></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; 03:35 p.m.</em></p>

 

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

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

 

<em></em></blockquote>

<p><em>Exactly what I've said. You limit yourself by the definitions you set for yourself.</em><br>

Great rhetoric for a Hollywood movie about starving artists, etc. but in reality there's a bit more to it than that. In reality, if the square shape had any real artistic potential, it would be used more often..... a LOT more often.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>The square format did not limit the work of Piet Mondrian and Josef Albers - they used it to reinforce the composition.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Two artists, out of thousands. Not a great data base for sampling.<br>

I've already talked about Mondrian and his approach, and Albers used similar artistic devices.<br>

Novel approaches to be sure, but if the square format had merit beyond that, as I said before, it would be used more often..... a LOT more often. <br>

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I hope we can move on at some present or future point from the well-expressed and well-repeated arguments about the square (an Albatross or boring for some, intriguing opportunities for the other), while remaining open to someone who may have some other new ideas about the positive value of the square format.</p>

<p>Perhaps some thoughts on the other two questions, centering of subjects in your images and the value of symmetry in photographic compositions? I think Robert gave some very nice photographic examples of both, in an achitectural or design context. You might have a look art his fine work. Maybe there are other images that seek to express emotions, held values or other communications to viewers, and that make effective use of subject centered images, or symmetry?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<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; 04:33 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>I hope we can move on at some present or future point.....</em></p>

 

<p><em>Perhaps some thoughts on the other two questions, centering of subjects in your images and the value of symmetry in photographic compositions.....</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur, centering and symmetry are closely related design elements. They typically convey "importance" or"stateliness".<br>

The reasons for that are best left to the clinicians, suffice to say that they are powerful design tools when ued properly.<br>

That's why courthouses are designed that way, very symmetrical.<br>

When you see the President speak, notice the symmetry, the centering, and the verticals.<br>

Verticals are another closely related design element that has not been mentioned so far. They work the same way as symmetry and centering.<br>

That's why courthouses abound with columns, those imposing vertical elements that intimidate for obvious reasons.</p>

<p>Bill P. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The majority does things the way it does them because, being insecure (as they should, considering religious and political oppression, the struggle to survive etc), they live by "rules." The creative minority is no better than that majority, but we do need them...and we typically identify them when they break treasured rules.</p>

<p>That's dramatically exemplified by the work product of public building architectural committees and their usually-third-rate architects...hired specifically to burnish and secure committee member careers by faking something "substantial" for the masses: columns, references to touristic antiquity etc. Postmodern architecture was briefly fresh, in the 70s, referencing older traditions, columns etc. Now it's trite. Trite will always be popular.</p>

<p>For the same reason they avoid good architecture, public institutions automatically avoid good graphic design and, especially, good writing.</p>

<p>Some are wired for rules, others are wired for inquiry. We all do some of both, most likely.</p>

<p>I doubt many of the photographers "we" commonly admire are saddled to compositional rules. In fact, we reward photographers who violate them... the thrill hints at individuality, which many of us claim to treasure. Not that it's a good use of time, but someone can always find evidence to support those rules...that evidence exists for the same reason most drivers obey speed limits etc: it's not more worthwhile, but it's easier.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Arthur,</p>

<p>I have one idea that I think is interesting, but I'm not sure I can get it right in words. I'll give it a try ... (even though my brain does not work well at the end of the day).</p>

<p>Unlike any other artform, the content of a photograph is always understood to continue beyond the frame. It seems to me that this lessens the value of Arnheim's claims -- and many of the traditional art school chestnuts -- because we don't build out of nothing into our chosen format. Arnheim's centers and vectors assume a closed system. Yes, a photograph is taken as a "complete" thing, but I don't think a photograph is generally truly thought of as being a closed system. Stuff "escapes." The edges become porous; space is always deep (we're never dealing with a square -- it's always a cube ...), stuff runs out of and into the frame, weakening its nature and significance and importance (to some degree; never completely).</p>

<p>On the other hand, <em>because</em> it's a given that the world always goes beyond the frame, I think that the borders are the place (the only place?) where the photographer is purely responsible and therefore entirely present in the making, in the creation and to the viewers of the finished work; of the photograph. Compositionally, everything else is an interplay; a relationship, a give and take, but the edge is all you (or me); all the person pushing the button. In that I think that in photography, the crop, the edge, the frame is where the photographer is most purely ... there. Is felt.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Julie, interesting thoughts. The very fact that a photo represents only an instant may also induce the photographer and the viewer to look outside the frame or the content, to look for more. Even though the frame implies some sort of closed system, which is determined by the photographer, during or after the exposure, the viewer is free to see beyond that. And isn't that what we want sometimes? I can remember being criticized at some competitions where the judge felt that the composition wasn't tightly enough bound within the frame. The eye was being led outside the frame. While I didn't agree fully he may have been right (for him, his appreciation, and probably that of others). Perhaps it is the viewers mind that needs to exit from the frame and not his compositional eye?</p>

<p>I'm not sure that I appreciate all you are saying, which is perhaps my fault until I re-read your idea more carefully. In regard to a detail of that, do you not think that painting can also continue sometimes beyond the frame? One of Arnheim's examples is that of the girl pouring well water (Ingres, forget the title), in which the falling water, that is normally perceived as dynamic, appears rigid, whereas the portrayal of the girl's body shows the dynamism of her otherwise static pose and her torso and limbs, in contrast to the water. All this appears in the centre of the frame, and one is not at all conscious of the borders, or even of the surrounding scene away from the girl, her shouldered bucket and the falling water. Anything happening outside of the frame is in the viewer's head (the perception of what is really going on), although I must admit that I did not see the significance fully until explained. But it is strongly there.</p>

<p>John's architectural examples are interesting, as are William's, but for different reasons (asymmetry versus symmetry). One takes more of a chance with asymmetry, unless it is the natural asymmetry perceived in nature (and perhaps in other than snowflakes). It took an English nobleman in I believe the early 19th century to show the public an alternative to the oft-repeated classical Renaissance architecture that until then had been the easy way out for architects and their clients. His asymmetric mansion was a turning point in that country, that had known little else since Christopher Wren or his predecessor.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Yay, Julie, but the pre-photography illustrator was working with something where the frame was also understood to continue beyond the frame, to work as identifiers (see Peterson's Guides). The frame was sometimes obliterated between birds (in a different sense than you're doing it, I think).</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Question re: "<strong>pre-photography illustrator"</strong>. Who, for example? What do you mean by "illustrator?" Goya? Is his work "understood to continue beyond the frame?" Who is it that "understands" that "continuing?"</p>

<p>I think that's only one narrow way of understanding photographs (or indeed any "art")</p>

<p>just IMO: "Symmetry" and "composition" when highly obvious (rather than incidental) seem to me to hint, if not prove "trivial graphic design" more often than "significance" . That's not to say that symmetry and such devices aren't of value. As a parallel, Playboy Pink is a good color for its purpose: the everpopular goal of mass culture is the "pretty" image (ie easy to appreciate...sunsets etc), and popular culture isn't a bad thing...I love Coltrane, others prefer Miley Cyrus....</p>

<p>Compositional factors I'm most aware of when dealing with an image that gives me the time to think, or to restructure when printing, include filling the frame with interest and eliminating material that's distracting... much more important than structuring the frame for symmetry, which is easy enough as an afterthought, routine. IMO cropping can be a virtue, obsession with symmetry and especially "uncropped full frame" can be stultifying.</p>

<p>Like everybody else, seemingly, I'm vulnurable to trite compositional kneejerking (golden mean, wide-angle-exaggeration of vanishing point etc) but I'm not proud of that, hate it when that dominates ... it's the unavoidable outcome of lifetime of exposure to trite images ( TV, advertising, decor, popular art etc).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I was thinking of the various herbals, Audubon, medical and scientific illustrations (a friend once said that all biologists learn to draw at least reasonably well, or at least used to, as that was the quickest way to document what one was seeing under the microscope). Same person had an illustrator do work for her plant breeding book. The point of that kind of illustration is that it's often less confusing than photographs as the extraneous things are eliminated. Birders even today recommend paintings illustrating bird guides to photographically illustrated bird guides. The information used to identify birds, the field markings, are clearer in paintings and tinted drawings. The illustration points at the real bird.</p>

<p>No, these things aren't art in the sense that they don't exist for their own sakes, though some of them are quite lovely.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wow, I can't believe the depth of some of these responses! I think some are over thinking this thing.<br>

My favorite cameras are a Rolleicord and Mamiya C330, both square format. I do my own darkroom work and interesting enough, I find myself printing square format probably 90% of the time, with a large portion framed full format, no cropping (Probably from years of 35mm slides). When developing 35mm negatives, I never crop them square.<br>

IMHO, I do not think of these square format photos as symmetrical compositions. Quite the contrary, I find myself using the rule of thirds most of the time. The rule of thirds still works whether the format is square or rectangular. I believe that most of my images are balanced, but not symmetrical as would be implied by many of the comments posted here.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Rebecca,</p>

<p>Yes, but ...</p>

<p>In a photograph, there is no ground, no limit -- lateral, vertical or on the z-axis (near/far) to the world that is prompted in the viewer's mind by that photograph. In nonphotographic images, there is always a ground, a limit, a boundary beyond which there is no more.</p>

<p>To use a language analogy, in nonphotographic images, if you look closer you don't see more words -- you see the page/substrate on which the words are made. In photography, if you look closer, you just see more, smaller "words" and if you look even closer, you see smaller words and on and on. There is no substrate; the meaning, <em>which</em> meaning (the "words"; <em>which</em> "words") of a photograph are determined by that arbitrary; chosen (not required) xyz axis/scale location in which the photographer <em>puts</em> you, the viewer.</p>

<p>You, the viewer, are always aware of that unlimited-ness; of the arbitrariness of the chosen location in time/space (it could have been otherwise [<em>red alert to all students of the question of free will</em>!]). You the viewer, could have been "put" anywhere else -- lateral, vertical, near/far, zoom in/out -- and there still would have been a picture. I don't think this sense of outside-the-frame ungrounded space/time happens in nonphotograhic images.</p>

<p>Arthur,</p>

<p>I know exactly the illustration from Arnheim that you are talking about (the woman pouring water) and I cannot find it. It's not in my (New, "completely rewritten") version of <em>The Power of the Center</em>, but I had (and read very closely) his original version. Maybe the water illustration was in that one. I also have numerous other Arnheim books scattered about the house in such a way as to make them impossible to find when I want them (much cursing has ensued ...).</p>

<p>One last comment on square-ness: trying to find a more or less random selection of photos as a sample of crop choices, I've flipped through Szarkowski's <em>Looking at Photographs</em>. In that book, the three images most nearly square (none are exactly square) are Diane Arbus's <em>Pro-War Parade</em> (1967) [14 3/4 x 14 1/2], Harry Callahan's <em>Eleanor, Port Huron</em>, (1954) [6 5/8 x 6 1/2], and Man Ray's <em>Rayograph</em>, (1922) [10 7/8 x 11 3/4]. I don't find anything in common with these three pictures resulting from the frame format.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=827968"><em>Loren Sattler</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Jan 25, 2010; 11:04 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Wow, I can't believe the depth of some of these responses! I think some are over thinking this thing.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really ? Ya think?....................</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Rebecca, when I look at some black and white images I think of illustrations, in the sense of the image being incomplete, devid of its natural colour range. It is acknowledged I think how that puts emphasis on other elements, somewhat like the details in your wildlife illustrations example. The B&W image does possess other attributes that the illustration doesn't, if for example we agree with Julie's distinction of substrate existence or absence.</p>

<p>Julie, the painting of Ingres "La Source" is Figure 114 on page 153 of my softbound edition of Art and Visual Perception by Arnheim. The abstract pattern within this figurative painting and its elements are each fascinating, handled with the artist's considerable experience, like the mature works of a music composer. It is also a fairly centered image.</p>

<p>The probability of finding paintings or photographs that are only close approximations to the square shape is quite high, although the use of the square frame is limited. In photography, the 4x5 camera and the 8x10 print size developed for it and for the larger view camera are more square than the 35mm frame. I do not know what the aspect ratio of movie theatre screens are, but they are likely close to the newly popular flat panel TV screens of 16:9. I think that the slightly off square format of say 4 1/2 x 5 or 4 x 5 is enticing, somewhat like the square format. It sort of annoys me that most digital picture frames are in the 4:3 or 16:9 format, reducing the size of screened portrait type images.</p>

<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; 07:04 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Unlike any other artform, the content of a photograph is always understood to continue beyond the frame.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Julie, nothing could be further from the truth.<br>

To begin with, there's nothing saying that a photograph is ALWAYS understood to extend beyond the frame.<br>

Also, There is also nothing saying that this concept is unique to photography.</p>

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1154645"><em>John Kelly</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 25, 2010; 06:57 p.m.</em><br>

<em>I doubt many of the photographers "we" commonly admire are saddled to compositional rules.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really?<br>

John, they all follow the rules. They do it in very subtle ways, but the rules are all there.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<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; 04:33 p.m.</em><br /><em>I hope we can move on....</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur, I tried................<br /><br />Bill P.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=827968"><em>Loren Sattler</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Jan 25, 2010; 11:04 p.m.</em><br>

<em>IMHO, I do not think of these square format photos as symmetrical compositions. Quite the contrary, I find myself using the rule of thirds most of the time. The rule of thirds still works whether the format is square or rectangular.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes it does. The rule of thirds works in portrait mode also.<br>

<em></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I believe that most of my images are balanced, but not symmetrical as would be implied by many of the comments posted here.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes they are balanced, and a square format should never imply symmetry.<br>

There is far more to the art of compostition than most people are aware of.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The symbology of the subject can often be intentionally centered in the composition, while at the same time not neccesarily being the center of immediate interest of the subject painted or photographed. Like in the painting <a href="http://www.artunframed.com/images/1peterbruegel/brue1-286.jpg">The Census at Bethlehem</a> by Breughel, with the almost insignificant wooden wheel that's intentionally placed almost straight in the middle of the composition and of all the action that's taking place in the painting ( with Maria entering the town as just one of the many figures, not any more important than the next ). The wooden wheel representing, by being placed in the middle of it all, the wheel of life, of fate, of history unfolding...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"In nonphotographic images, there is always a ground, a limit, a boundary beyond which there is no more." <strong>Julie</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p> Painting, even figurative non abstract painting, used to have clearly defined borders imposing a limit to the subject without not many hints of things "taking place" outside of the frame. But to that view of the frame being the limit of the subject - or differently put, that the subject could only relate to itself within the strict borders of the frame - came an end a long time ago. I don't remember the name of the painter or the painting that first broke most consequently with those "rules of the frame", but it's a streetscene where a man or a woman is cut in half by its borders ( like in a streetphotograph for example ) suggesting context and subject beyond the frame, which at the time the painting was made, was revolutionary.<br>

Ofcourse that painting was / is "photographic", in more abstract examples I can see a truth to this boundary beyond which there is no more, but this can be just as much evident in photographic examples that go more to the abstract but which are nevertheless photographic ! So perhaps with <em>nonphotographic</em> you meant abstract, or did you mean every work that simply isn't a photograph ? </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2116036"><em>Rebecca Brown</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/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 25, 2010; 10:08 p.m.</em><br>

<em>No, these things aren't art in the sense that they don't exist for their own sakes, though some of them are quite lovely.</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><em>Art is something that is done well, like if you cook well.</em> - Andy Warhol</p>

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Phylo, I like the example of Breughel where the centered object is there but subdued until you realise that it is a symbol of life, quite the opposite of strong centered subject images as, say, Arnold Newman's (I think I have the right person) famous and somewhat surrealistically coloured photo of Krupp in the midst of his World war II factory, or the Louvre's Ingres painting that I mentioned above.</p>

<p>Your example of placing subjects partly outside a frame is one way of decentering of the interest or more specifically of partly abolishing the frame, but I think there are also other ways that can happen. One is physical, in using picture elements and lines of interest to direct attention outside of the frame (creating mystery or another effect), the other is mainly mental, in which the photographer's subject suggests other things that are not physically present (anxiety, hope, drama, etc.) but which may be felt by the viewer, that is, by the continuation of the image in the viewer's mind. The Ingres image (painting "La Source") is an example, but abstract images can also do this.</p>

<p>I think that the non photographic images referred to originally by Rebecca and Julie were illustrations, where the substrate is more apparent in some such cases than in more "opaque" painting methods or photography.</p>

<p>Bill, I hope I wasn't too "autocratic" about the direction of discussion. I am only one participant. A free discussion that touches on various topics can be quite valuable, as the discussion direction you and others (and myself) are engaging in, in regard to composition and the (albeit necessary) imposition of the frame in photography. The discussion is also hitting the topics of subject centered images (re Phylo) and the question of the importance or not of symmetry within any chosen frame.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Julie, I appreciate your thoughts on the subject of it being somewhat in a photograph's nature to transgress the frame, though I think Phylo makes a good point about the limit of applying that to abstract photographs.</p>

<p>With recognizable content, I experience a difference between the imaginative content of a painting spilling outside the frame (or splashing, as the case may be) and the part of the real world left out when I decide what to frame with my lens.</p>

<p>The difference, as I see it: A (non-abstract) photograph excludes what's there and a painting may suggest what's not there.</p>

<p>In this respect, photography may be a little more like sculpture than painting. The sculptor chisels away the marble that's there to create his statue. That discarded marble will be some part of the finished sculpture. It will always be what was taken away. It is perhaps more "hands-on" than what I do with my lens as a photographer, but what I've taken away, as I've said before, is influential to how I go about framing things with my camera and photographing and to how I think about the subjects of my photographs and the photographs as objects themselves.</p>

<p>I don't find this to be the be-all and end-all of discussions about photographs. So I understand what John is saying when he says it's only one way to understand photographs. I wouldn't qualify it, as you do John, by saying it's a "narrow" way. It's a way to understand and think about photographs. It's an aspect, like any one quality or characteristic. I find it motivational and influential.</p>

<p>This NOT, the stuff of the real world that framing excludes, is part of why I place importance on transcendence. That doesn't just apply to photographs. For me, it can apply to any art form. In photographs, transcendence is at play at least to some degree, literally, because of what is not there. The real stuff outside the frame, in my periphery and beyond*, is part of what I mean when I say "there may be more here than meets the eye" and also when I consider that the photograph can often be about more than it's material subject.</p>

<p>*I exclude what's outside the frame. I also exclude things that may be part of the subject. When I make a portrait, I am aware I am leaving some of the person out.</p>

<p>____________________________________</p>

<p>There's a difference between a critical in-depth discussion and "over-thinking". There's something about Philosophy and a fair amount of thinking that seem to go hand in hand. </p>

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

<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 26, 2010; 10:56 a.m.</em><br>

<em>Bill, I hope I wasn't too "autocratic" about the direction of discussion.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur, not at all. I'd like to see these discussions point people in a direction rather than become obtuse classroom lectures on some myopic phase of a design element.<br>

We could cover a lot more ground that way, and I think it would benefit people more to keep answers short and to the point.<br>

Also, I have very limited time to devote to this type of thing, and I suspect many other do also.<br>

These are some of the reasons I keep my posts short and on point.<br>

It's also great artistic discipline.</p>

<p>Bill 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...