Composition and Design?

[alan_zinn]

<p>The broad selection of suggestions RE composition are all very good if one were after a comprehensive course of study. The question was for help with practical and conventional forms of 2-D composition within squares. Y'all got him prepping for an MFA. I'd love to find a camera club with that kind of depth!</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>The question was for help with practical and conventional forms of 2-D composition within squares.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When did David mention anything about squares?</p>

<p>When we seek answers, we don't always phrase the questions optimally. But that's okay; the important thing it to ask in the first place. If someone were to ask, "Will a polarizer help my studio portraits?" in the end they'll gain information about both polarizers and portrait shooting regardless of whether they ever apply them simultaneously. While answering the question, it's important to infer the asker's ultimate goal (better portraits) and to offer advice that will lead toward that end.</p>

<p>Thankfully, David seems happy with the responses that he's received thus far, and it doesn't appear that he's feeling pressure to sign up for an MFA. ;-)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So many fantastic suggestions! Thanks so much to all the responders!</p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>2-D design composition is conventionally about organizing square space because we live in square architecture. Need to study other (not Western) ways to compose flat surfaces also. Perhaps free up thinking. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Alan,</p>

<p>I think you are referring to architectural space made up of rectangular prisms, where the 90-degree angle is prevalent. Architects and the public in western societies, as elsewhere, are not pinned to this rule. A friend redid the interior of a rectangular shaped (at least for the bottom level) barn to make a home and studio/workshop - you have to search long for the right angles, of which there are very few. Triangular and trapezoidal shapes are the rule for him. Same thing for Daniel Liebeskind's crystal form addition to the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, where it is only the doors that remain right rectangles in shape. The sinuous Museum of Civilisation in Hull, Quebec, the serpentinous Guggenheim Museum of Art in New York, Bilbao in Spain or the Disney Hall in or near Los Angeles (these latter two buildings created by a Canadian architect, Frank Gehry) and many other examples exist of western architecture with anything but squared angles. There is a lot of free thinking and art isn't relegated to only square compositions, even those within a rectangular frame. </p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>How many trapezoidal picture frames do you have Aurthur? <br />Basic 2-D design is generally about design for square space. The insides of some contemporary architecture, that tends to be very large sculpture like Ghery's, that I have seen have mostly rectangular rooms. The Gehry's Stata building at MIT is quite successful in many ways particularly in that it expresses the culture and dynamism of science inside and out. I was there a couple of weeks ago. I hadn't been there since they completed the surounding landscape. I'm still grumbling to myself about what to me is a rather insulting and thoughtless sighting of the red thing: <em>Aesop's Fables, II</em>, by Mark Di Suvero. It is a conflict of interests as much modern public sculpture tends to be.<br>

I have some B/W pans of Ghery building here: http://www.panoramacamera.us/m_stata.html</p><div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Dr. Caligari called, he wants his set design back.</p>

<p>So that's what the culture and dynamism of science looks like inside and out?</p>

<p>Why am I experiencing vertigo just looking straight at it without looking down?</p>

<p>Oh well, back to the drawing board.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>You got it Tim! Mad Scientist Modern. Walking around MIT campus you can peer into lab windows and see the incredible gear lash-ups and whiteboards with cryptic notes. The buildings have elaborate mechanicals on their roofs too. First time I visited a cyclotron lab I was expecting kind a deck of the Starship Enterprise and it was more like Back to the Future. The campus is visually stimulating with a mix of architectural styles, from neo classical through 50's Saarinen to Robot Factory Modern. The Ghery building emphasizes the idea of fundamental materials crafted on the spot to a raw, unadorned finish by skilled trades workers. The inside has un-painted, A/B-grade ply furniture and accessories not unlike behind a stage set. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Well I've never doubted MIT's ability to combine art with science, but I'm afraid that Strata building makes it look like science beat the crap out of art with a slide rule and pocket protector.</p>

<p>In fact if you stepped back far enough from that building pictured it sort of does look like a clump of pens in a pocket protector.</p>

<p>Some institutions should just stick to what they do best.</p>

[robert_k1]

<blockquote>

<p>I really feel like my photography can really benefit from me increasing my knowledge of composition.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For this purpose, knowing your genre of interest is the starting point. Then reading books and visiting galleries with that genre would directly help your own work.</p>

<p>When you look at others' work, ask yourself *why* do you like or dislike certain pieces' compositions.</p>

<p>Treat a camera club judge's comments with a grain of salt.</p>