Compositional rules: do they really appeal to human's innate sense of beauty?

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>Casual photos taken by my friends rarely exhibit compliance with those rules of composition either.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They don't know what they are doing. I like numerous kinds of music but I can no longer play an instrument. Just because I can't play an instrument doesn't mean we should burn all sheet music. Behold the story of the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/world/europe/botched-restoration-of-ecce-homo-fresco-shocks-spain.html">Monkey</a>. Just because amateurs can't figure out how to get good results doesn't mean the pros should throw out the rules.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Why don't people put their subjects in the dead center and feel 'Mmm. This isn't pretty. I've got to move the subject off the dead center.'?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because dead center is fine. It's safe. Frankly if you don't know what you are doing it's the best choice in my opinion. Frankly I do it quite a bit myself if I am in a hurry. The reason being is because I've screwed up an untold number of shots by placing the subject too close to the edge and having the frame crooked. After straightening out the frame and cropping even if the subjected doesn't have part of itself chopped off by the cropping it is too close to the edge and it is just uncomfortable to look at. When I have time and I am shooting digital I experiment a lot. I do the dead center shot and then I do a variety of off center shots. I really got into the off center thing when I started shooting stock photography. Leaving a nice smooth nondistracting blank area in a picture leaves room for ad copy. But amateurs don't put that much thought into what they are doing and they simply don't have the experience. I find in photography more so than a lot of other endeavors I've been involved in in my life a lot of it is about really simply tricks and having the right equipment.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A lot of people who have not learned composition don't seem to appreciate it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A lot of people appreciate it they just don't know why. If you show them a picture with good interesting composition they will like it better than the dead center shot... but I doubt they will know why. They'll just say they like it better. What came first is people on average liked a certain kind of composition. I'm sure someone somewhere analyzed people's reactions to numerous pictures and photographs and then derived the rule of thirds.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Steve,<br>

I think you seem to be misreading something in your reply to Fred:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>seeing the photograph instead of the subject <strong>and </strong>forcing the subject to fit into a predetermined mold so that it follows or complies with a known rule.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><em>(emphasis is mine)</em><br>

Seeing a photograph as a photograpgh has got totally nothing to do with "molding it into compliance with rules". What, in my view, Fred is aiming at is that a photo can be seen as a photo of a subject; abstract photos for example aren't as much about the subject as they are about being a photo.<br>

Trying to make things following some common guidelines is something else entirely. It does not contradict seeing the photo as a photo in any way.</p>

<p>Otherwise, yes the "rules" (oh please can we call them 'guidelines' instead) are a good place to get started. As much as some may dislike them, learning about them and actively applying them for at least a period of time will ensure you do not take your framing for granted, but will think about placement of your subject, inclusion and exclusion of elements, and hence making sure your subject is shown in a way that it conveys your message.<br>

And that's what 'seeing the photo as a photo' comes down to as well: seeing the communication that a photo can transmit, seeing the story it tries to tell, seeing it as a message. The subject is a large part of that, but so is your choice of point of view, colour/B&W, perspective and composition.</p>

[Julie H]

<p><a href="http://www.photoeye.com/_cache/049beb255e737b9a8f790b97ae90e417.jpg">Composition without its photo</a>.*</p>

<p>[*HCB for those not "in the know."]</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>Seeing a photograph as a photograpgh has got totally nothing to do with "molding it into compliance with rules".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's how it should be...however...<br>

I have had exchanges with people over the "rules of composition" because of my statements about compostion and, in many cases, the point they're trying to make to me is that the photo should (or must) comply with a "rule" in order to be considered successful. And further - that compliance with a known compositional formula all but guarantees the final outcome - the photograph will be more interesting - and therefore, "successful."</p>

<p>It's gotten to the point that one person went into my online portfolio and recropped a photo to "show me how it should have been composed" - making the photo comply with the compositional thirds forumula. In essence, the person wasn't looking at the photograph - only whether it followed a guideline with which they were familiar. Why they had this opinion is a totally separate discussion and could encompass a range of factors from inexperience, naiveté, inflexibility, etc. </p>

<p>When you release the shutter, you fix a selected moment that you have chosen, organized, and arranged to liberate what is within the framelines from the visual detritus surrounding it. When you become sure of what you're seeing and how it feels best within the boundaries of the frame - then the similarity between your final image and a compositional guideline should be purely coincindental. The image itself is a convergence of person, place, lighting, time, space and other influences and elements as the reality of the world flows around you. </p>

<p>My point (apparently not clearly explained) is that so many people compose the image with more sensitivty to placing things within the frame so that the final photograph complies with a familiar compositional guideline - than being sensitive to what is unfolding around them and totally integrating the essence of what is being seen into a final composition free of artificial constraints.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What, in my view, Fred is aiming at is that a photo can be seen as a photo of a subject; abstract photos for example aren't as much about the subject as they are about being a photo.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you're reading whatever you want into the words you've read in order to make some type of "point" - which, I've totally missed. I have no idea what "being a photo" has to do with an abstract composition. I could be mistaken....but, I've always thought that the idea was to make something that is interesting to look at - whether or not that's about "being a photo."</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Maybe it's because the most popular "rules of composition" tend to be of limited value in most circumstances. It's better to let each scene suggest its own rules rather than trying to force every image into compliance with some academic idea of what makes a good photograph.</p>

<p>Look at a sample of Pulitzer Prize-winning photos. Look at covers of magazines that are known for good photography? How many times to these images comply to the Golden Mean or the Rule Of Thirds? Not very often, I suspect.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>There may be a danger of simplification in these discussions. Generally speaking, the rule of thirds is discussed as a "rule" not always to follow, especially in non-landscape photography. That certainly seems reasonable. But that's also not the extent of what one might learn in studying the ins and outs of composition. Through study, one can learn about eye movement, the effects of scale relationships, foreground/background relationships, and many other things. Composition has many subtleties and nuances. I wouldn't suggest studying various "rules" and applying them directly in specific situations, just like one wouldn't study exposure in order to adhere to certain rules of it. But knowing in general how to expose for effective back lighting or to get a high key result if one wants it can be very helpful. And knowing the basics of how the eye travels around a photo and how scale can effect perception, how to create a sense of depth through use of perspective (if one wants depth in some cases) can be very helpful tools. Such "study" doesn't have to be academic and doesn't have to be done in school. It can be "learned" on the go, with an attentive eye. Some have a better sense of these things naturally and for some it will be more learned, just like everything else. I agree with Dan that each scene may suggest its own "rules." And one has to have some knowledge and awareness of what one may be looking for or able to get out of each of those scenes. One doesn't learn about exposure and depth of field in order to expose every picture the same way or use a consistently boring depth of field and apply it similarly in all situations. Likewise, that's not why one learns about compositional elements, qualities, and relationships. I don't learn to restrict myself to certain rules. I learn to free myself. Knowledge is power.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>If you haven't the time or interest to study and learn from art, which includes also, but far from exclusively, the best of photography, and if you haven't the inclination to "see" rather than just "look" at subject matter and have little desire to think and to feel how that subject matter affects you, no amount of technical approaches or conventional compositional rules will make your photographs rise above the déjà vu, except perhaps by chance. A human's innate sense of beauty is to my mind not something that is just there at the origin of one's life, but an aesthetic that is developed later through one's own education of eye and mind. Common rules are often ignored in good art when the resulting aesthetic of the overall selected or created image is unique and powerful, but the latter is often anchored in a knowledge of what works and what doesn't. The attraction may be emotional or sensual in respect of our senses, or purely physical and graphic, although even in the latter case an emotional response of some sort is often illicited and/or felt by the viewer.</p>

<p>One thing that I sense that photographers often overlook in studying what makes an image powerful is that of the equilibrium or not of masses, colors, tones and forms within the image. We sense the importance of those contrasts or harmonies, not because of an innate sense of beauty, but rather because we have been educated to understand, see and respond to those differences and features, much like the way the prepared (i.e., educated) mind perceives and appreciates complex musical scores, or the effect of well-conceived yet intricate architecture.</p>

 

[simon_crofts]

<p>I think the rules have a potential purpose, which is getting people to try different things. The problem is that the downsides of having these rules are far greater than the potential benefits.</p>

<p>For example, the 'rule of thirds' would be better replaced with a statement such as "try putting the elements in various places around the frame - don't just always stick the main subject right in the middle". Other rules I would rather think of as techniques - look at both foreground and background and see whether it is better to include foreground or background material - look all around the frame, not only at the main subject, and see whether there is excessive mess, what the relationship of those other objects is, whether they help or detract from the picture - look out for strong shapes and lines in the image and see whether they are arranged in a way that helps the image, and so on.</p>

<p>Calling these rules of composition is misleading and counterproductive, they're techniques or approaches to taking pictures that you learn. By studying composition of existing paintings and photos - and sculptures etc. - you learn something about interrelationships that work and those that don't. It's really studying <em>composition</em> NOT <em>the rules of composition</em>.</p>

<p>Studying composition involves developing un awareness of why a particular image works and another doesn't. Each image is different, so there are no particular rules that carry over from one to another. But most of us probably go into taking pictures with a basic library of templates in our head which we use as starting points - which hopefully we try to use, to develop and move away from</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>I feel many images by "photographers" are just too pat. I know I'm not exactly revolutionising the art-form myself (!), but I've often been advised to "finish" an image- by cropping, especially, or being told my D.o.F. is 'wrong' or that what I really need is to convert something to high contrast black and white to give it 'impact'.<br>

Most of these treatments do absolutely nothing to improve the photograph.<br>

I have no objection whatsoever to seeing the process involved in the shot- I have no problem with bleeding in certain circumstances, or with other technically flawed aspects as long as there is a dynamic to the image in which the relationship between the subject and photographer is clear.</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>A human's innate sense of beauty is to my mind not something that is just there at the origin of one's life, but an aesthetic that is developed later through one's own <a id="itxthook3" href="../philosophy-of-photography-forum/00aoIb?start=30" rel="nofollow">education</a> of eye and mind.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>...do they really appeal to human's innate sense of beauty</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That too is something that I find bothersome - the concentration on the end goal being "beauty." </p>

<p>Beauty in and of itself in a transient concept that changes as the times change. The Picturesque movement is one example that is interesting to me as the entire concentration is on finding beauty. It was closely related to the Romantic and Sublime and was a counter movement to Baroque based on Edmund Burke's theories of the beautiful and sublime.</p>

<p>What is fascinating about the movement is that beauty was so carefully defined that appreciation of natural beauty was reduced to finding and establishing viewing points within the landscape and providing framed openings so that one would not see outside of the constrained definition of "beauty" at that viewing location. </p>

<p>I have to question the quest today of pursuing defined "beauty" by containing it within the frame lines of the camera with the final photographic presentation a strange parallel to the framed viewing points of the Picturesque.</p>

<p>A successful piece of art does not have to be beautiful. I find "interesting" to be far more compelling than beauty - as beauty is often a superficial feature contrived within a piece to meet a one dimensional concept. Beauty is also a learned cultural aesthetic. So the goal of incorporating or making something beautiful as the singular end objective may not translate ubiquitously across all cultures because of inherently different culturally based aesthetics.</p>

<p>So, now we get back to the original question - "do rules really appeal to a human's innate sense of beauty?" And my questions back are - "Is this really important?" "Or, are you merely looking for a shake-and-bake formula that will guarantee success in manufacturing a defined concept of 'beauty'"?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I guess I took the OP to be asking a relatively straightforward question. Are things we've learned or been told about composition in some sense hard-wired? If I understand Alan Zinn correctly in some recent threads, he's asked about evolutionary aspects of art. These, I think, are interesting questions.</p>

<p>I agree with Steve that the introduction of "beauty" is unfortunate and complicates matters. The meaning of "beauty" can run the gamut from "superficially pretty" to "inner grace" to a more all-encompassing moral quality as in some interpretations of Plato.</p>

<p>Unless the way beauty is being used is specified, it can be hard to work with.</p>

<p>It's almost impossible for me to come up with one word, instead of beauty, to describe what art aspires to. I doubt one word will ever do it. I tend to lean towards something like "engaging" because that shows the strong connection I feel to so many pieces of art. And yet, there is great art that I would call "disengaging." It's one of the reasons I opted to make pictures instead of just describing them. When I do talk about art, I tend much more toward discussion and try to avoid the use of singular words that try to capture it all.</p>

<p>There are ways in which humans and artists are pack animals. Sure, artists "break the rules" all the time. I actually find, though, that wannabee artists talk about breaking the rules more than artists often actually break them. Many artists change the rules and they often do it together, in a culture, a time period, and a milieu. It's not by pure accident that so many artists will take up a particular mantle and run, together, with it. It's why we have schools of art. Artists tend to feed off each other and riff off each other. Are they really just breaking rules willy nilly? Or are the advancing and changing inherited models and modes of expression? Yes, there are a handful of individual artists that may stand out historically as complete and utter rule-breakers, the extremely rare person with a completely unique vision and style, one unheard of and causing a rift with the past. More often, art evolves and connects to previous works and styles as much as it breaks from them.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Most of what are called compositional rules ("systems" more appropriately) evolved through drawing and painting. Photography is an art different from painting in the way farming is different than cooking. Yes, both involve tomatoes and corn, but.... Would a new art form be in debt to old processes?</p>

<p>Simplistically, a painter lays down or composes original relationships. The arrow goes from artist to scene. In photography the arrow is reversed with the scenes already existing. That alone redefines this art from others. Where the painting was prioritized around space, the photograph is prioritized around time - this 1/1000th of a second versus that 1/1000th of a second. Is golden section really the first tool to grab? Cartier-Bresson heralded the decisive moment, not the definitive space.</p>

<p>Photography is so brand new yet that maybe it hasn't been freed yet from the history of painting?</p>

<p>Of course a composition is present in a photograph by definition. But the sub-title of every photograph is "this moment in time." That's not particularly applicable in painting. The photographic decision by the artist is always one of timing. This ties the photograph intimately to the artist's psyche rather differently than painting.</p>

<p>It can still hold that the stiff in the dead center of the photograph makes a bad photograph, but maybe the more likely culprit in that error is "bad timing." Or more realistically, no sense of time at all. Dead time.</p>

<p>There's probably many who still don't even think of photography as an art, so it's not too surprising that new motivations aren't as popular yet. Painting has had thousands of years to settle on it's rules. Photography is nascent.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Some very good points about the differences between painting and photography. Well worth considering by many in this forum who don't seem to be able to admit such differences.</p>

<p>I do disagree with the claim that the sub-title of every photo is "this moment in time." Bresson's insights about the decisive moment notwithstanding, Bresson and the decisive moment are not definitive of photography. Many photos center around a narrative, not a moment and, for many good photos, one moment of snapping the shutter would have been as good as the next. I recently saw an exhibit of Cindy Sherman's work. Not once did I think about or was I in touch with a moment or time as the primary factor. Her work, and the work of many other photographers, is not about timing to the extent that someone like Bresson's is.</p>

<p>I love the stuff here about relationships. The notion that a painter's arrows go from artist to scene and that the scene already exists for a photographer is well worth considering, even with all the exceptions we can think of. This would relate to the "reality" discussion taking place in another thread, where some are trying to claim that the way reality is dealt with is no different in painting than in photography. M has hit upon something well worth being open to.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Fred,<br>

Yes, it is true that for many photographs, and even whole genres, "one moment is as good as the next." But, each is none the less a moment to be chosen by the artist. That shutter snap is the core of photography. Always what is being arranged is time. Exposure is timed. Movement is frozen or loosened by time. The lens is pointed out at a moment in time.</p>

<p>Comparatively, all things to be arranged by the painter are relationships of space and mass with time being nearly inconsequential and non-existent. The arrangement of space flows from artist to art. But in photography all the space and form exists, and what is flowing is time, and that is flowing into the direction of the artist behind the shutter. So, even though for some photograph 10:46 is as good as 10:48, the arrow has not reversed direction, and the artist is still managing time.</p>

<p>These are of course large generalities. There's no strict interpretation of how any art is created, or why. There's no formal proofs tendered, just ideas. In general, especially in casual critique, I see people step off the painting platform onto the photography platform as though one naturally proceeds from the other, and I suspect that oft made assumption to be totally false. Photography is not an outflow, extension, new modality, or branch of painting. It sprang out of the ground whole and new.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>m, I agree in general terms with what you say about the differences between painting and photography, that you have somewhat uniquely described in terms of your arrow, or the sense of the vector of influence in the creative process. However, one can also find many exceptions to the general case you state. Many of my landscape painter friends are not composing something in their head (not so much arrow to the scene) but are perceiving a scene that already exists and are translating it, or, more importantly (and like in photography) parts of that scene. How it translates to canvas is also a matter for their approach and technique and from those considerations they are imparting to the final work their art (their arrows to a scene). In much of my own photography I am not letting the observed scene dictate all of the result. I look for (attempt to see) balances and contrasts of forms, of lines, of colours, of light and dark, of visual anomalies or enigmas, of symbols, etc., that I choose to use or not. I create scenes by adding or subtracting elements or by re-arranging them when that is both possible and artistically warranted. Beyond that, I often have already an idea at the chosen time of exposure of what I am going to modify or change in post exposure treatment with Photoshop. I see the the approaches and the techniques of art (painting) and art (photography) as two overlapping circles, not as two distinct phenomena as you seem to suggest. </p>

<p>Reality is not always the objective with either painting or art. When each seeks to represent or communicate some aspect of reality they may do it in different ways with different effects and results.</p>

<p>In regard to the OP, however, I think that "rules of composition" is not the best term for what we understand as contributing to a visually powerful image, From the time of the cave drawings man has iteratively produced images and sculptures that either had the power to please the mind or senses of others, or not. The combination of experiences of beauty and harmony has led over much time to a certain consensus of what is visually powerful (arrangements of colour, point, line and form on a two dimensional blank), whether it is something of beauty, or something not beautiful but which otherwise arouses the senses and mind and thereby satisfies the observer. Attempts to quantify these as rules has never overly impressed me, and in any case I would suggest that most are simply guidelines that are elastic enough to bend. Sometimes I receive a comment on my photos that is simply that the observer is struck by some intrigue or strangeness or atmosphere of an image, but is unable to say exactly why. I understand that inability to analyse someting that might be a mix of visual effects, and it is quite different from a more fuzzy appreciation of "I like that".</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Arthur,<br>

Oh yes, I very much agree that there is an overlap of the two distinct arts. At this junction of the two forms, I can see photographers like Erwin Olaf or Gregory Crewdson. They both employ huge collaborations, and specifically remove time from the product. They indeed turn the arrow around intentionally. What is remarkable to me, is that it is immediately evident that they have turned one art process into the other at the most fundamental level. The figures in Olaf's photographs read like meticulously created, livelier than life wax figures. I interpreted that as intentional, not accidental. Upon seeing them for the first time, I had to re-orient to the appreciation of paintings. </p>

<p>So yes, exceptions abound - of course. Sometime so many that discovering unique principles is difficult. The reason I was teasing out this distinction between the arts, was to make a case that the much mentioned <em>rules of composition</em> were derived from drawing and painting, and don't function as powerfully in photography. I'd make the case that photography has its own <em>rules of something</em>, which would be better appreciated than the ones for the older art of painting.</p>

<p>The <em>rules of composition</em> are about the relations of subjective static elements in an artificial space. These relations all work with the arrow pointing from artist to art (meaning "from-->to"). Time is not a consideration in any of the formulations. The goal of managing these relations is communicating tension, mystery, action, tranquility, fragility, power and so on. (I employ the word "drama" to cover all those feelings.)</p>

<p>The <em>rules of timing </em>in photography (not so named!) are about the relations of objective time lines and their intersections. Outside of the mind, all objects are moving on their own time lines. The man passing the window, the leaf blowing across the rock, the shadow moving with the sun, the photographer panning the camera, and the glacier crawling down the mountain are all inter-connected, objective and dynamic time lines. The photographer imposes her own time line into this and freezes some chosen intersection of multiple time lines into a photograph. That's how he will manage these relations. </p>

<p>This applies even if the photographer is arranging so-called static subjects. If the robin is picked up and moved to the underbelly of the dog, that's the intersection of two objective time lines dog and robin. When the photographer moves and points the camera, that is the third time line, and the photograph is taken.</p>

<p>The painter is a god and the photographer is a CEO. The painter creates drama on a blank slate ("Let there be light!") where the photographer creates drama by bringing order to an array of objective resources and their time lines.</p>

<p>DISCLAIMER: I am not building anything in concrete here. I am just doodling loosely.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>M,</p>

<p>Those distinctions, even with exceptions abounding, are important and I appreciate your sticking with it. No, not set in stone at all and with lots of blur around the edges, but nevertheless it's revealing to look at some core differences even while remaining mindful of the similarities. There is an artistic subtlety, I think, in applying composition, the notion of time, place, even subject, and even reality (being discussed in a different thread), differently to photography and painting, even if there is so much the same in all of it as well.</p>

<p>Your writing reminds me of something I read recently from Stieglitz:</p>

<p><em>"</em><em>The arts equally have distinct departments, and unless photography has its own possibilities of expression, separate from those of the other arts, it is merely a process, not an art."</em></p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Fred,<br>

That is a very powerful and profound quote. I hadn't heard that, but I very much appreciate its meaning.</p>

<p>I've had a lot of discussion recently with fellow photographers in which the theme was that photography is really so new and nascent that it hasn't even begun to bloom into its own yet. That the future is huge for photography in areas we don't even recognize yet. And it was from that theme that I began to wonder about the unique fundamentals that make it new and different from painting and drawing.</p>

<p>So, to borrow from Stieglitz, I want to keep honing in on that set of fundamentals that are so unique in the photographic process. It's amazingly fun to ponder, to imagine, to practice, to consider. Once I had a small taste of this awareness my own interest in painting fell to the wayside. And now, when I pick up the camera I have a sense of adventure even if I don't know quite where to point my compass. I'm just being open to it. I readily admit that my own photographic experience was until recently captive to the other traditions of painting and drawing.</p>

<p>I don't know yet how much it will change my photographs, but I do know it has already changed my photographic experience while looking through the viewfinder.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>[When did "homing in" turn into "honing in"? Oh well ... I know what is meant ...]</p>

<p>A) An artist might have the aim of promotiong (conscious) perception of some singular object, concept, idea, etc out of the multiplicity of experience. With that in mind he would wish to hone/home in. Envision an arrow. Rules, strong structure would be useful.</p>

<p>B) An artist might have the aim of promoting (conscious) perception of the multiple possibilities that infuse actuality. With this in mind he would wish to hone/home *out.* Envision a wide net. For this, breaking the rules, defeating structure might be useful.</p>

<p>It's my opinion that photography "naturally" tends to the second -- it casts a wide, indiscriminate net. It's also my opinion, that opinionated beings like us tend to the first -- we hone/home *in.*</p>

[cooltpmd]

<blockquote>

<p>"Innate sense of beauty"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As a scientist by training, compositional rules seem to be a stab at the psychology/science of beauty if you will. And, science is limited in most of its psychologic knowledge base. There is absolutely, unequivocally an innate sense of beauty ... though it is impacted by so many other things, and differs between individuals. </p>

<p>What do your soul/spirit/heart/sexual organs lean towards the most? Mary Ann/Ginger, Blonde/Brunette, Ocean/Mountain, City/Country? Its our differences that make this world pretty interesting, and the scientific formula for beauty hard.</p>

<p>So, the "Rule of Thirds" can be described as: given no knowledge about your audiences actual makeup, their psychology, their individual sense of aesthetics ... on average, placement of the photo contents according to this rule will have a higher probability of producing a longer gaze, a sense of "interest", etc... Of course, this means that some percentage of your audience will feel you made the wrong choice, will show less interest, and will gaze less. </p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>Mary Ann/Ginger</em>>>></p>

<p>The Professor.</p>

<p>_________________________________</p>

<p>I didn't re-read the thread and it's been a bit dormant for a while, and I hate to ask this question but I'm afraid I must. <em>What is beauty?</em></p>

[doug_williams4]

<p>Well you can blame it on the Italian Renaissance when Greek mathematics, "The Golden Rule" or "Rule of Thirds", and the development of perspective, making a picture appear to have space, were developed. Most of the rules come from this period when modern painting started. Before that compositions were more centered and the pictures were flat. Does this matter? Just ask yourself if you like the Pantheon and does the design appear pleasing? It's design is entirely based on "The Golden Rule". Does this come naturally? I think so as some people have an eye for composition and do this without thinking. </p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>I wouldn't blame it on the Italian Renaissance or the Greeks - it wasn't their fault that so many people in subsequent generations were too feeble minded to think for themselves. Renaissance and Greek mathematicians and in some cases philosophers and artists came up with certain theories that did a trick for them in a particular context.</p>

<p>The Parthenon is a perfectly decently proportioned building, there's nothing at all wrong with it aesthetically. It's not the only attractive building in the world. It's highly doubtful whether it actually applies the golden ratio, but it's a lovely building nonetheless. More to the point, at the time it was ground breaking and a fantastic achievement from many points of view. The spirit of the Parthenon is carried on by those who seek to break new ground and introduce new ideas, not by those who try to apply tired old formulas to other contexts they were never intended for in order to make life easier.</p>

<p>As an aside, one would imagine that the Greek mathematicians who were interested in the golden ratio would be horrified to see it bastardised as the 'rule of thirds'. If they had meant the proportion to be a third, they would have made it a third, not the precise mathematical ratio that it is.</p>

<p> </p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>p.s. I assumed you meant the Parthenon rather than the Pantheon, as I believe it's mainly the former that some people have tried to associate with the golden ratio in the past? Apologies if I read you wrong.</p>

[doug_williams4]

<p>Thanks for the correction Simon. Sometimes I don't know if I am in Athens or Rome. There is a very good Nova TV program on PBS that goes into an excellent explanation of how the Golden Rule is applied to the design of the Pantheon. I agree that the Greek mathematicians would be horrified. </p>