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

felixg · January 28, 2010

Bill,

I do agree that "I don't need so stinking rules" is not constructive.

On the other hand, I can't see any sign of that approach in Arthur's question?

His approach was the philosophical one: to examine the prevalence of the rules and wonder about them − and about might be gained by diverging from them. Your response, a flat assertion, was in the opposite direction.

I've flown with some good self-taught pilots ... but I do take your point. Photographically, though ... generally speaking, I would prefer to see my students reject the rules, explore what happens then, and develop their own understanding of why the rules have been proposed, than just accept them. And as a client, I would rather employ the first sort than the second − an uncritical mind is more likely to be "boring" than a square selected by a critical one.

Spearhead · January 28, 2010

Gimmicks will always come and go.

</blockquote>

All it takes if five minutes with the work of Luis Gonzalez Palma, a great photographic artist although priced way too high for me to ever consider, to understand that calling square format a "gimmick" is the height of absurdity.

william l. palminteri · January 28, 2010

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=19592">Jeff Spirer</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 28, 2010; 11:06 a.m.

Gimmicks will always come and go.

</blockquote>

All it takes if five minutes with the work of Luis Gonzalez Palma, a great photographic artist although priced way too high for me to ever consider, to understand that calling square format a "gimmick" is the height of absurdity.

</blockquote>

Let's see, one photographer who did SOME square format work.

That's your database?

That makes your case?

You're kidding, right?

Bill P.

fate_faith_change_chains · January 28, 2010

Rules never accomplish anything, it's the breaking of them that pushes things forward, only in this context they are needed.

Spearhead · January 28, 2010

You're kidding, right?

</blockquote>

No. If it was a gimmick, it wouldn't be art for anyone.

But the fact is, as Luis points out, that plenty of great photographers have done terrific work with the square. That one person can't only points out that person's limitations.

william l. palminteri · January 28, 2010

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1706103">Felix Grant</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 28, 2010; 11:05 a.m.

Bill, I do agree that "I don't need so stinking rules" is not constructive. On the other hand, I can't see any sign of that approach in Arthur's question?

</blockquote>

Felix,

I didn't see it in the question either.

I see it in the answers.

Let's look at it this way.

Disregarding any rules, etc., if "square" worked, it would be the format of choice.

The rules come about through observations like this.

Airplanes crash due to an overlooked aerodynamic phenomenon.

It doesn't get overlooked any more, it becomes a design criteria ("rule").

I mention this and people go nuts trying to disprove the obvious.

People will mention one artist, who used a square format occasionaly, and that negates the rules, or some such bizarre logic.

Luckily, aircraft are designed with a bit more consideration for the way things work in the real world.

Bill P.

william l. palminteri · January 28, 2010

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=934135">Phylo Dayrin</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><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/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 28, 2010; 11:31 a.m.

Rules never accomplish anything, it's the breaking of them that pushes things forward, only in this context they are needed.

</blockquote>

Right.

Good to know.

What design school taught you that?

Bill P.

william l. palminteri · January 28, 2010

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19592">Jeff Spirer</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 28, 2010; 11:35 a.m.

You're kidding, right?

</blockquote>

No. If it was a gimmick, it wouldn't be art for anyone. But the fact is, as Luis points out, that plenty of great photographers have done terrific work with the square. That one person can't only points out that person's limitations.

</blockquote>

"Plenty".

Right.

Considering the thousands of artists who have turned out millions of pieces of great art over the centuries, what number is "plenty"?

And what one person do you imply that "can't"?

Bill P.

aplumpton · January 28, 2010

Bill, if I remember, you wanted the discussion to move on (or back to...) the more philosophical basis of the use or understanding of three compositional elements: the square format, centering of subjects and symmetry in photographic images. It probably won't, if you insist on debating every participant on the single subject of the square format and "the rules".

Norma Desmond · January 28, 2010

Arthur, I posted something and then read your post and, respecting your thread, I prefer to allow it continue as you wish, so I am deleting what I wrote.

fate_faith_change_chains · January 28, 2010

What design school taught you that?

</blockquote>

None, which makes the point perfectly.

Norma Desmond · January 28, 2010

Double post, sorry.

william l. palminteri · January 28, 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 28, 2010; 11:45 a.m.

Bill, if I remember, you wanted the discussion to move on (or back to...) the more philosophical basis of the use or understanding of three compositional elements: the square format, centering of subjects and symmetry in photographic images. It probably won't, if you insist on debating every participant on the single subject of the square format and "the rules".

</blockquote>

Arthur, people keep challenging me, and I don't back down. Ever.

But in deference to you and our combined wishes to see this thread move forward, I will ignore all further challenges on the square format issue.

So to move forward (again), did you notice the use of symmetry, verticals, etc. in the President's speech last night?

Bill P.

william l. palminteri · January 28, 2010

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=934135">Phylo Dayrin</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><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/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 28, 2010; 11:51 a.m.

What design school taught you that?

</blockquote>

None, which makes the point perfectly.

</blockquote>

In deference to Arthur's wishes, we're moving forward.

Bill P.

mizore · January 28, 2010

Julie brought up the possibility that photography isn't like other graphic arts, that it's much more manifestly a selection than a creation, but I suspect that distinction is post-photography, that some people working as painters/illustrators/news engravers would have seen their job as capturing a selection of reality. Court illustrators same thing, a semblance of reality.

If photography is radically different from previous art, then drawing inferences from earlier art may not be correct.

I'm, however, still jonesing for a 645 Hasselblad back.

Norma Desmond · January 28, 2010

Interesting points, Rebecca.

I'm not sure I'm being logical, because I absolutely see the logic of your answer about photographs and, say, court illustrations. My bias is that I generally think about photographs as not serving a forensic purpose but it's good to be reminded that they can and do at times. And, somehow, despite the analogy working when you compare the selection aspect of making photographs to the selection aspect of illustrating, I do feel a fairly strong difference between the two. There's just something about holding a lens up to the world and framing out part of that world that feels so different to me from an illustrator selecting the part of the world to illustrate. It's something I will try to put my finger on, but can't quite at this point. Maybe I will just photograph it.

What ever inferences I draw from earlier or other art mediums to photography, I don't hope for them to be correct. Again, I understand you're not using the word pedantically, but what I mean is that the logic doesn't necessarily even have to hold up. For me, the inferences just have to be suggestive. I mean, even if the inferences are wrong, what harm is done, if those inferences lead you to use your medium or create with your medium in a way that suits your purposes and/or vision?

william l. palminteri · January 28, 2010

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2116036">Rebecca Brown</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/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 28, 2010; 01:52 p.m.

Julie brought up the possibility that photography isn't like other graphic arts......

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2361079">Fred Goldsmith</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 28, 2010; 03:51 p.m.

Interesting points, Rebecca.

I'm not sure I'm being logical, because I absolutely see the logic of your answer about photographs and, say, court illustrations......