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

jtk · January 26, 2010

Arthur, I know you'll correct me if I'm missing something, but this seems to be the heart of your OT: "The square frame,...can remove the imposition of horizontal effect (calm, balance, etc.) or vertical effect (nervosity, energy, etc.) and perhaps allow a freer communication of content?...may reflect more how we see. My feeling is that extreme rectangular framing (1:3 or greater) often acts more as a decorative element than as a compelling encapsulation of an image"

Obviously, a) the Arthur Plumpkin responses to these factors are your own and b) because they're yours, I believe they're significant and have been reflected upon.

Personally, I don't find shape of frame a tool as much as called for by circumstances: eg. something about a scene/scenario or having to do with a client's requirements.

I'm not much interested in landscape photography, but it seems that in my Southwest the terrain can sometimes best be responded to with panoramic techniques.

I've seen remarkable portraits that are mere skinny vertical slices of semi-profiles (one eye/nose/lips). I've seen equally remarkable skinny horizontals that featured pairs of eyes.

It seems obvious that fine photographers do what's best for their own work, using the tools that make them or their clients happiest. In film that was as often 6X6, 35mm, or 4X5/8X10 proportion. Wedding photographers mostly abandoned 6X6, finding 645 very rewarding, better for the sales (where client quantifies "compelling") of many of them until they (mostly) switched to APS-C ...3 formats...."practical" factors shouldn't be forgotten...I'm not so much equating "weddings" to "art" as I'm pointing out the ability of good photographers to adapt image to technology, and I do think there are infinitely more fine wedding photographers than "art" photographers despite my personal dislike for commercializing the fantasy.

We can just as reasonably choose to relax and work within a format or use the format as an active device, the way you've suggested, without too much concern ...unless our "theories" dominate us :-)

For me, your "compelling encapsulation" is one rewarding way to consider images . I'd be happy with that kind of response to some of my own photos, but "puzzling" or "puzzling and compelling" can be better because it may help me reflect and explore. I prefer doubts and exploration to theories and answers.

Despite their seeming differences, an autistic person, a social isolate, an authoritarian type, or someone oriented mostly to touristic images and decoration all might actively avoid or dislike "compelling" due to pathology, lack of social ease (uptight, egoist, incompetent), desire to control, or desire for easy acceptance (emphasis on "pretty").

jgalyon · January 27, 2010

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

</blockquote>

That's kindly understating the obvious.

Julie H · January 27, 2010

@John Galyon

I think some are over thinking this thing.

</blockquote>

*wondering why John thinks he knows how much anybody else is thinking*

Nope. Just checked the gauge on the Think-O-Meter and its comfortably below the red zone. I wonder if you are perhaps under thinking? Please check your own Think-O-Meter.

If what you really mean is that we are speaking (writing) too much about "this thing," please explain. That could be a valid claim, but not without an explanation of some sort. That's what we're doing here. Try these tips on how a philosophical exchange works (this is the Philosophy of Photography forum, informal though it may be):

To speak is to speak to someone, to answer for his ignorance, lacks, destitution. To speak is also to speak in the place of another; when one speaks to someone one formulates one's own insights in his words, one puts one's own words in his mind. When the other is there and able to speak for himself, he listens to the thoughts one formulates for him, and assents to them or contests them or withdraws from them into the silence from which he came. -- Alphonso Lingis

</blockquote>

When a post to this forum doesn't even attempt to explain his/her position, I am inclined to think that the poster is either too chicken or too lazy to even try.

Norma Desmond · January 27, 2010

Hey John Galyon, you crack me up. I've read innumerable of your posts in other forums over the years. You've gone on for paragraph after paragraph at a time, sometimes over the course of days, with sometimes quite tortuous logic, word after word and example after example, on such topics as PN ratings and other good stuff in the off-topic forum. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You just gave me quite a laugh. Hypocrisy, a funny, but frustrating, trait ;-)

Here are just a couple of examples:

[Warning: you will never get the time back you spend reading these . . .]

http://www.photo.net/off-topic-forum/00Vad6

http://www.photo.net/off-topic-forum/00VRzY

william l. palminteri · January 27, 2010

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2397502">John Galyon</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 27, 2010; 02:46 a.m.

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

</blockquote>

That's kindly understating the obvious.

</blockquote>

John, Arthur suggested that we move on, I tried to move this thread forward, but to no avail.

Bill P.

william l. palminteri · January 27, 2010

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3885114">Julie Heyward</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 27, 2010; 06:47 a.m.

I wonder if you are perhaps under thinking?

When a post to this forum doesn't even attempt to explain his/her position, I am inclined to think that the poster is either too chicken or too lazy to even try.

</blockquote>

Julie, why don't you tell us when enough is enough?

Bill P.

Norma Desmond · January 27, 2010

Never mind.

aplumpton · January 27, 2010

The question of whether any philosophy forum results in too much thinking is not totally different from suggesting that exercise may be an inefficient means of gaining improved muscle form. Original thinking and thoughtful consideration of various aspects of any subject are seldom the causes of failure to resolve a question or failure to gain some enlightenment on a subject of interest. Sure, sometimes a long text requires effort to work through and may contain a little of repeated or redundant thought, but very short reponses sometimes appear too glib or at best incomplete (just like images can also be incomplete, or unsatisfying). Words are a useful tool for thought.

What I enjoy about this sort of forum, or those of 'Casual Conversations" or "Off-topic", amongst others, is the opportunity to exchange useful thoughts with other thinking persons. Sometimes it is simply fun to play with the vocabulary or with humorous aspects of life, which also involves thinking (believe it or not), as within the mixture of humorous and more serious topics in the "Off-topic" forum. A other times, forums like this one allow us to engage with others in objective discussion and to wrestle with our understanding of ideas and concepts important to photography. Over-thinking? I doubt it.

My interest in seeing some discussion on the question of images with subjects strongly centered in the frame, and the other question of the value or not of symmetry in photographs, and the effect of these two approaches or "designs" to evoke certain feelings (emotional, intellectual,...) of the viewer and to enhance or detract from the perceived "power" of an image, was not to diminish the discussion of the square format (the third sub-theme of this post), but simply to engage the thoughts of others on two sub-themes that had not been discussed very much to this point (sorry about the paragraph length, I don't have the time to re-organize it).

I am wondering if those two points might not be better addressed in stand-alone posts?

In the meantime, I am happy to wait and see if others may wish to express their thoughts or further thoughts on them here, now that the two questions have been formulated.

william l. palminteri · January 27, 2010

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2347092">Arthur Plumpton</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><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="" /></a>, Jan 27, 2010; 10:09 a.m.

The question of whether any philosophy forum results in too much thinking is not totally different from suggesting that exercise may be an inefficient means of gaining improved muscle form.

</blockquote>

Arthur, too much exercise results in overtraining.... fatigue, injury, illness. In a word, counterproductive.

Bill P.

aplumpton · January 27, 2010

Bill, are you not being a bit too concerned with the effectiveness of the example, and less with the intent of the discussion at hand? It's sort of like when hearing a politician start his speech by saying "My fellow citizens,..", someone leaps up with the question of whether we are all "fellows" or not.

For me, that is a waste of time. In any case, if the gentleman who thought we were expressing too much thoughts in this forum really thinks so, he is not obliged to believe otherwise and he can simply leave te discussion. I have seen a lot of really good discussions torpedoed by that sort of intervention.

william l. palminteri · January 27, 2010

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2347092">Arthur Plumpton</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><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="" /></a>, Jan 27, 2010; 10:18 a.m.

Bill, are you not being a bit too concerned with the effectiveness of the example, and less with the intent of the discussion in hand?

</blockquote>

Arthur, several days ago you seemed to think that we were done with this "framing" thing.

<a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/user?user_id=2347092">Arthur Plumpton</a> <a rel="nofollow" href="../member-status-icons"><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="" /></a>, Jan 25, 2010; 04:33 p.m. I hope we can move on....

</blockquote>

As you know, I tried to move the discussion forward, to no avail.

Bill P.

aplumpton · January 27, 2010

Bill, thanks for your aid in that regard.

Let's simply give it a bit of time and see whether those two sub-themes (centered subjects and symmetry in art and photography) related to the philosophy of visual communication are of interest or not, and whether it might be better at some time that I initiate separate and more focussed posts.

william l. palminteri · January 27, 2010

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2347092">Arthur Plumpton</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><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="" /></a>, Jan 27, 2010; 10:42 a.m.

Bill, thanks for your aid in that regard.

Let's simply give it a bit of time.....

</blockquote>

Sure thing, Arthur. Considering the importance of symmetry and centering in art, graphic and architectural design through the ages, I'm surprised nobody else has picked up on these topics.

Bill P.

Julie H · January 27, 2010

Arthur,

As you may know, I am a compositor. In most of my non-bird composites, I rely heavily on symmetry and/or repetition. But I use both (symmetry and repetition) specifically to "break" the photographs -- to play with the viewer by making something that can't be what it appears to be. As an example, you might look at my <a href="http://www.unrealnature.com/Nowhere_thumbs.htm">Nowhere</a> series -- (which, to my annoyance, almost nobody ever "gets" unless I point out the repeats).

This one (first link below) is not very obvious; find the center of the image and then look for lateral symmetry and/or vertical symmetry in the placement of identical (the same) leaves or sticks. The trick is that I overlaid the repeats onto non-repeats:

<a href="http://www.unrealnature.com/Nowhere19.htm">http://www.unrealnature.com/Nowhere19.htm</a>

The next one is more obvious and therefore should be easier for you to find the symmetry (surely you can't miss it!):

<a href="http://www.unrealnature.com/Nowhere47.htm">http://www.unrealnature.com/Nowhere47.htm</a>

And in this next one, I'ver repeated everything in all four quadrants so it's blatant:

<a href="http://www.unrealnature.com/Nowhere26.htm">http://www.unrealnature.com/Nowhere26.htm</a>

Here are more:

<a href="http://www.unrealnature.com/Nowhere08.htm">http://www.unrealnature.com/Nowhere08.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.unrealnature.com/Nowhere09.htm">http://www.unrealnature.com/Nowhere09.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.unrealnature.com/Nowhere12.htm">http://www.unrealnature.com/Nowhere12.htm</a>

Compare to repeats without symmetry in these two (nonsymmetrical) examples. In these, I use the same leaf or stick or whatever over and over and over again (usually at least three times):

<a href="http://www.unrealnature.com/Nowhere25.htm">http://www.unrealnature.com/Nowhere25.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.unrealnature.com/Nowhere33.htm">http://www.unrealnature.com/Nowhere33.htm</a>

To repeat what I said at the start, I use symmetry to break reality. However, the fact that people don't "get it" makes me wonder if they notice the symmetry -- or maybe the deliberate ordinariness of the image content (my favorite material -- earthly detritis) isn't enough to get a slow look.

aplumpton · January 27, 2010

Julie, Great. Sometimes the more interesting examples are the more subtle ones. One reason too why I personally like abstract paintings on my walls as I do not tire from re-visiting the paintings at different times to appreciate something within the composition that I previously missed, or something that feeds my thoughts or feelings at that time. Your objective of "breaking" the photograph is one good use of symmetrical, yet not too easiy detected, elements.

I think that in some scenes involving human or animal presence the symmetry can also be used to play with the viewer, to induce him or her into thinking the everything is balanced, when other elements show that it is not. Asymmetry of colour or textures are also put into symmetrical compositions for much the same reason, or chiaroscuro effects can be used in more graphical B&W or colour compositions to unbalance the perceived symmetry.

The triangular symmetry of the three characters (mother-father-child) in one of Picasso's blue period paintings, titled (I think) "The drowning", uses symmetry to unite a family at beach side where the message is one of a tragic event and not a balanced one. I like that, because it is part of life, but my sister-in-law said unequivocally that she could not live with that reproduction, when I suggested she temporarily exchange it and other reproductions for some of their own.

jgalyon · January 27, 2010

Fred, you crack me up! Why is it that you Fred, are the only one who took personal offense to what I said and felt the need to mock and name call? I'll resist the urge to react in kind and will instead send you a personal e-mail instead.

Julie H · January 27, 2010

Arthur,

Irving Penn's non-commercial (and commercial, but I'm more interested in the non-) work is always working strongly off of the pull to vertical-axis symmetry. You could call it very strict balance, but I think the way it always pulls to that central vertical moves it beyond balance and toward (or against -- the tension is coming from) symmetry.

Here's a link to some of his stuff:

<a href="http://www.masters-of-photography.com/P/penn/penn.html">http://www.masters-of-photography.com/P/penn/penn.html</a>

Julie H · January 27, 2010

[Double post.]

Norma Desmond · January 27, 2010

Julie, your own work, looked at from the perspective of symmetry and repetition, is mesmerizing. I have often been stymied by my own feelings about the roles of titles, but I wonder if a simple change in title for the series from "Nowhere" to "Repeats," "Reciprocation," or even "Iteration" might not accomplish a contextualization for the viewer that would provide a nudge to help the viewer "get it" assuming you are at all inclined to help her along.

There is a sense of fugue in some of this work. That repetition mirrored and disguised, echoing, exiting, entering.

It seems almost beyond the discussion of symmetry as either energizing or static. Yours seems not just a use of symmetry . . . as a tool . . . as in the Penn links (and I haven't read whether Penn himself utilized that central vertical theme with a great amount of intention or was naturally inclined toward it for whatever reasons) . . . as much as an exploration of it.

So, of course you use symmetry, but not just as an accompaniment or guide or qualification or even substrate. It is, in a sense, your subject. Perhaps the determined "ordinariness of the image content" supports the symmetry as subject more than the other way around. It is thoughtful work (and I am comfortable using that as a compliment). It is, indeed, contrived, as so much great art is.

felixg · January 27, 2010

HTML clipboard

Bill: I've hesitated to write this, in case it seems like an attack. Please believe that it is not; I have been impressed by your thoughtful comment on a range of things in other cases, and question this time because I think it relevant & important.

Arthur: I am also conscious that I have contributed little useful to discussion of your questions, and am now wandering off on what should really be a separate thread.

To both of you, apologies in advance if they are needed.

In almost all of your posts to this thread, Bill, you call on us to abandon examination and exploration of "rules" and accept them without question on the word of received authority in one form or another: psychologists who have studied thing, people who have learned things or taught (I put my hand up; I'm guilty) them on a degree course, the consensus of practitioners, and so on.

But if we accept without question, there can be no art and no philosophy. Even if the things we are discussing and questioning are true, that doesn't exempt them from critical examination; art and philosophy arise from the willingness to challenge received wisdom, from the willingness to risk mistakes in the interest of possibly opening up something new, from the refusal to simply be told what is true without testing its truth.

With respect, your efforts to "move the discussion forward" have been efforts to move forward in acceptance of your own view, not to move forward in open examination of Arthur's questions. In a philosophy forum, questions (even if I have been able to contribute nothing useful to their exploration) are lifeblood. In my own personal opinion, the same is true of art – in fact, there is a case for considering whether that might be one difference between art and craft.

Julie H · January 27, 2010

Fred,

Thank you for those insightful observations [sounding cool and calm, when in fact I am smiling from ear to ear]. "Fugue" is exactly right -- and I had not thought of it before. And/or "motif" development (and I won't risk revealing my musical ignorance by anything further).

Penn was a studio photographer. When he did portraits of primitive people in remote lands, he took a portable studio with him. The balance within his frames (many of which are square ...) is incredibly perfect. I'm grateful to Arthur for making me look for symmetry because I had not previously noticed how relentlessly he uses the central vertical.

[I don't want to affect what Felix has said to Bill by commenting on it but I must say that I think his post is beautifully stated.]

mizore · January 27, 2010

Julie, one reason people may not see what you're doing is that there are too many CGI armies out there in Movieland, so we learn not to pay too much attention less the frame of the movie turn into fractals.

aplumpton · January 28, 2010

Penn's use of the center, and of the central vertical, is quite a good example of the force of centered subjects. He shows also that it is not necessary to center all elements of a scene in the center, as in his NY theatrical group in the link to his work that Julie provided, but to use the center of the image as a sort of pivot, or center of gravity, of what is depicted. This is much in line with part of what Newman discusses in his book "The Power of the Center" (I am trying to relocate the darn thing as it is so easy to forget what one has read).

I think I mentioned that I consider the centering of image elements as an obvious way to suggest an equilibrium or stabiity in the elements contributing to making an image. I particularly like the possibilities to compare and especially to contrast these various elements (figurative elements or masses of colour or form) of the scene within this otherwise suggested balance or equilibrium. Thus, by opposing these elements within the centerd and apparently symmetrical or balanced scene we can create tensions that speak of real or imagined emotions or physical compositional conflicts.

By chance, I tuned into the on-going CBC Ideas series last night (old fashioned radio, and a network program I almost had the chance to direct a part of some several decades ago, when as a young and disillusioned engineer with some USA college radio training I was interviewed by CBC program director Lester Sugarman - but that is irrelevant, if not another one of my cases of placing second in competitions....) to hear a program sited in Oxford and Banbury (UK), in which some of Stephen Hawkin's physics colleagues were interviewed on the subject of the nature of time and space. One or two spoke of a concept that time is simply a human construct, and that everything exists "now", or that there are many "nows", throughout history, just as there is a continual progression of space around us.

A bit much for this humble mind to assimilate, but it did have the effect of relating my thoughts to our discussion of centered subject images.

Perhaps the power of the center is to suggest "now", the immediate. Of course, we "know" that the photograph is an instant in time, but we are being told a story by the photograph that defies that time limitation. Perhaps we equate in our mind the centering of image elements with a question of time and space, and the use of this astuce gives us the oportunity to say that "this is now". This IS important, or this represents an equilibrium of everything around the centre, a personally imposed center of gravity, of thought. Whatever the conflict of picture elements that we (and I favor) have brought to rest about the center line or point.

luis_g · January 28, 2010

At one time the square format ruled. A lot of that work fell during the years between the end of the press camera era and the advent of 35mm, when square format went from small to medium, and from the field largely into the studio. Unfortunately, a lot of people rigidly associate the format with work from that era. There's plenty of excellent work done with the square format. There's a guy who crops his view work (landscape) into the square format. Photographers like Plachy, Robert Adams, Lee Friedlander, Christenberry, Kenna, and many others still use the square format to make world-class imagery. I loved the square format, and still own a couple of bodies and lenses, but haven't used them in years.

__________________

The great majority of all photographs have been and continue to be made with the (obvious) subject in the center of the frame. We reject (or embrace) the centered subject because it is perhaps the most salient and recognizable trope of the snapshot style. Some distance themselves from it because it is a signifier of amateur work. Others (myself included) use it, among other things, as a key and useful meme for easing into the viewer's mind. It is a powerful part of the field within the frame, one that can be played with to shift the relative weights of what is depicted.

__________________

The normal human field of view is a stretched butterfly shape, unlike any format.

___________________

On symmetry, we have the Middle Eastern school, which adheres to highly codified, often breathtakingly complex mathematically founded abstractions. Symmetry (and asymmetry) is something few photographers understand, let alone use. Overused, it appears painfully contrived, subtly used, as in Julie's case, few detect it. In Western Art, one of the keys to (a)symmetry is the way it is broken.

___________________

Arthur, this is really three topics, each worthy of its own post. In spite of the usual distractions, a good post. Thank you.

Julie H · January 28, 2010

Rebecca,

You're probably right. And don't get me started on Photoshop jokes (which I have to admit I like even though I hate how they distort people's understanding of the amazing power of Photoshop).

Arthur,

I think there is a real danger of mistaking the "center" for a genuine phenomenon in and of itself. (I am fairly certain you don't like my more airy fairy writing, so I will try very hard to keep this earthbound.) I think you're getting into a circular argument when you suggest that the center *of itself* has power. I think that "center" is the same as, not something separate from, what holds our attention. I know, you're saying, "Well, duh!" but give me a minute.... Two examples:

First example:

Think of compositionally bad photos (or any kind of bad picture). They are unbalanced or balanced but uninteresting or they collapse to one side or the other. The piece of paper on which they are printed still has a center, but it's a meaningless geometric location IF our center of attention and balance around that center of attention isn't relevant, affected by or USED by the maker of the picture. In other words 1) the viewer's attention determines the center (the center is a consequence of attention, not vice versa), and 2) how the photographer uses our (his and the viewer's) attention reference that physical spot on the piece of the paper makes (or fails to make) the picture work. Makes the center work. In other words, the center doesn't gain its power until and unless the photographer works with/to it. If attention is not working with/around/to the center of the image, then that particular physical center does not have power -- you just have a bad picture. People mentally frame/center their interest elsewhere -- where their attention makes its center.

Second example:

Pick one of the Penn pictures that is centered on the central vertical. Then imagine that all of the image content was moved an inch or two to the left or right (off center). Does the center of the image remain the center or do you visually move with the content, visually reframe to the content which is now not aligned with the image center/frame (and now have a "bad" photograph)? In other words, our attention "makes" the center. It's not "there" before we (maker or viewer) find it, feel it, and use it in concert with, as part of our compositional dynamic.

[Luis, you posted while I was wrestling with this post. I agree with a lot of what you've said.]

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in