Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

<p>"I think that "center" is the same as, not something separate from, what holds our attention."</p>

<p>Julie, that is somewhat like saying the centre (or center) is what "interests us" within any image. For me the centering of picture elements has its power or force only if used by the artist or photographer in a specific compositional way, to "incite" a reaction from the viewer. There may be absolutely nothing in the centre of the frame and other elements are simply referenced to that point or (normally vertical) line or limited space, or there may be all or a part of the elements of the image. That doesn't matter, it's the whole message of the image that does.</p>

<p>I find your text fairly easy to follow, at least where it remains grammatically precise, so that is no problem. The theories of the British physicists I mentioned are much more "airy fairy" to the uninitiated (few of us are mathematical physicists). But I find that their rejection of time, and the concept that everything is a multitude of "now" incidents occurring simultaneously (the moment of Julius Caesar's death, or Obama's rather fine speech yesterday), time and space in the same reality, is quite fascinating. It resonates for me in terms of what I think about the use of the centre of the frame, to give equal force to then and now, and to create a photographic reality that ignores the fact that the photo was made in some other instant of time (As an engineer, used to conceiving and measuring things on a time basis, I still consider time in the traditional and not relativistic sense).</p>

<p>I am not sure I am explaining my concept of centre very well, or even that I have reconciled all it may imply in my own mind, but I love the psychological and philosophical implications of the dynamism that can be created in a photo by the apparent centration and symmetry of the elements of an image and the contrary evidence (tension, etc) of the juxtaposition of unbalanced elements of the "now" image, whether chromatic, form-based or emotionally charged.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>I think this is somewhat similar to what Julie already said but the way I see it, the photograph = the subject, and as such it can't really place itself in the center of itself. For me subjects aren't placed in the center to put emphasis on them being the subject, it's rather that the center is used in the making of the photograph / image as the subject.</p>

<div>00Vcn6-214915584.jpg.a459029af4badfa3d1bf4031bd9c6a39.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1706103"><em>Felix Grant</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 27, 2010; 06:07 p.m.</em></p>

 

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

 

<p><em>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.<br /><br />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.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Felix,<br>

Let me clarify.<br>

I by no means want anyone to adhere blindly to the rules.<br>

My point is directed to those who think that the rules are there to annoy them, and serve no other purpose except to satisfy some college professor.<br>

These are the people who either state flatly or otherwise imply "Rules? I don't need no stinkin' rules!" when in fact they have no idea what those rules are or why they are needed.<br>

The supposed romance of being a "Rebel without a cause" may hold water on these boards, but in the real world of serious photography, the big kids know the rules before they attempt to add to that body of knowledge.<br>

Here's an example, form this website.<br>

I was roundly chastised by a member who bragged about his quitting two art schools because the professors sounded like me, meaning that they tried to teach him the fundamentals of artistic design. He seemed to wear his rebelliousness as a badge of honor.<br>

Rules? He didn't need no stinkin' rules either.</p>

<p>So once again, I do not want anyone to blindly follow the "rules".<br>

I just try to point out that you can save a lot of time by following the map instead of driving around in circles for hours.</p>

<p>Here's another way of looking at it.<br>

The next time you're on a commercial flight, ask the pilot if he's self taught.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=977570"><em>Luis G</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 28, 2010; 07:06 a.m.</em><br>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Luis, in the grand scheme of things, that's a very short amount of time.<br>

Velvet paintings of Elvis ruled for a while, too.<br>

Gimmicks will always come and go.<br>

Innovation comes and stays. That's the difference.</p>

<p>Bill P. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Bill,<br>

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

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

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.<br>

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.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Gimmicks will always come and go.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=19592"><em>Jeff Spirer</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><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="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 28, 2010; 11:06 a.m.</em></p>

 

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

<blockquote>

<p><em>Gimmicks will always come and go.</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

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

</blockquote>

<p>Let's see, one photographer who did SOME square format work.<br>

That's your database?<br>

That makes your case?<br>

You're kidding, right?</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>You're kidding, right?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. If it was a gimmick, it wouldn't be art for anyone.<br>

<br /> 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.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

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

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

</blockquote>

<p>Felix,<br>

I didn't see it in the question either.<br>

I see it in the answers.<br>

Let's look at it this way.<br>

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

The rules come about through observations like this.<br>

Airplanes crash due to an overlooked aerodynamic phenomenon.<br>

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

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

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

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

<p>Bill P.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

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

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

</blockquote>

<p>Right.<br>

Good to know.<br>

What design school taught you that?</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19592"><em>Jeff Spirer</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><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="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 28, 2010; 11:35 a.m.</em></p>

 

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

<blockquote>

<p><em>You're kidding, right?</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

<p><em>No. If it was a gimmick, it wouldn't be art for anyone.<br /><br />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.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Plenty".<br>

Right.<br>

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

And what one person do you imply that "can't"?</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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". </p>

<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 28, 2010; 11:45 a.m.</em><br>

<em>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".</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur, people keep challenging me, and I don't back down. Ever.<br>

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.<br>

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

<p>Bill P.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

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

 

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

<blockquote>

<p><em>What design school taught you that?</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

<p><em>None, which makes the point perfectly.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>In deference to Arthur's wishes, we're moving forward.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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.</p>

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

<p>I'm, however, still jonesing for a 645 Hasselblad back.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Interesting points, Rebecca.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
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 28, 2010; 01:52 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>Julie brought up the possibility that photography isn't like other graphic arts......</em></p>

<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 28, 2010; 03:51 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>Interesting points, Rebecca.</em></p>

 

 

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

</blockquote>

<p>How does these posts relate to the O/P, which is....<br>

<em></em><br>

<strong><em>Square framing, centered subjects and symmetry in photography - the poor relatives?</em></strong></p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>IMO reducing photography to "a graphic art" seems as odd as reducing Bach's work to a graphic art (musicians say he leaps from the page into their heads, sans instrument).</p>

<p>Have you seen film of Picasso at work? Was what you saw mere "graphic art?" I recall him frying a fish, eating it, using the bones to make a print. He was a dramatist, fish-frying/eating print-maker... that particular morning. A mere collector or curator might call that print "graphic art," but she'd miss the point, which was more cinematic.</p>

<p>That "graphic art" label reduces the work to a Walmart category.</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 28, 2010; 05:09 p.m.</em><br>

<em>IMO reducing photography to "a graphic art" seems as odd as reducing Bach's work to a graphic art (musicians say he leaps from the page into their heads, sans instrument).</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Once again,<br>

How do these posts relate to the O/P, which is....<br /><em></em><br /><strong><em>Square framing, centered subjects and symmetry in photography - the poor relatives?</em></strong></p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>*nodding at John K.*</p>

<p>We're not doing logos or leisure wear.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>How does these posts relate to the O/P, which is....<br /><em></em><br /><strong><em>Square framing, centered subjects and symmetry in photography - the poor relatives?</em></strong><br>

Bill P.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If a (fully trained) pilot is looking at a photograph of the cockpit of an airplane and he is also looking at an illustration of the cockpit of an airplane and his life will depend on the accuracy of what he is seeing is there any qualitative difference in his confidence level of what exists beyond the frame of both images? If so, if the edge of a photograph is somewhat "permeable," how does that change the significance of the photographic frame to the composition within its boundary? (Centering, frame shape and symmetry being dependent on, defined by, <em>requiring</em> a fixed, "limiting" frame, not one that is ... leaky.)</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...