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

[simon_crofts]

<p>The two buildings are easily confused! As you probably guessed I'm not a fan of these mathematical proportion theories in art. I tried to apply it to the Mona Lisa for example, and as far as I could make out the golden ratio cuts through her throat, hardly the most significant part of the composition. I think that if one is really looking for a proportion in a picture and prepared to approximate a bit, you're going to find it whether it's really there or not. </p>

<p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mona_Lisa_Golden_Ratio.jpg">example on Wikipedia</a> that purports to apply the golden ratio to Mona Lisa seems a bit random - you have to choose the starting reference point of somewhere on the hands and the top of the hair (not for example the top of the forehead or the middle of the left arm, or the top bottom and sides of the whole painting, each of which would seem to be more natural starting points - or at least as equally valid as the ones they used) to get it to fit. Even with the eccentric choice of starting points many or most of the ratio lines are missing her key features - passing somewhere between the eyes and nose, in between mouth and nose, and so on rather than crossing the key features. The diagram proves nothing - except perhaps that even if you try to fiddle your framing points, you still can't apply the golden ratio to that painting. And that's supposed to be the archetypal example of where the golden ratio is used in art.</p>

 

[AlanKlein]

<p>Why do we always pick the rule of thirds to argue about innate sense of beauty? Let's try another "rule" that makes for more pleasing results in a photo. </p>

<p><em>The photo should be in focus especially portraits and better the eyes. </em></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Alan, you make a good point. There are other things to discuss besides the "rule of thirds", which is not a rule at all.</p>

<p>But there is no rule, or at least no good rule, about photos being in focus, portraits or not, and the eyes don't have to be.</p>

<p>In both cases, I wanted their faces out of focus and their eyes not really readable. To me, that went with each person and situation.</p>

<p>See Andy and Kevin below.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p> </p>

<div></div>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Fred: Of course, all "rules" are meant to be broken if there is a reason. You wouldn't necesarily apply the rule of thirds to protraiture where a person looks better centered in most cases. While the photos you posted are an exception, again, for the most part, pictures of people look better when their eyes are in focus. The same could be said for keeping horizons level. Sure you can tilt the camera, but in most cases it would be better if you didn't.</p>

<p>You're a musician. What would you call a "rule" in music so that you get more pleasing sound to most people's ears? Maybe we can apply that word to photography too.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>What would you call a "rule" in music so that you get more pleasing sound to most people's ears?</em>>>></p>

<p>A rule both worth knowing and breaking. (LOL. Sorry, I couldn't resist.)</p>

<p>Seriously, IMO, "more pleasing" is relative to what the artist, photographer, or musician wants to accomplish. The "rules" we speak of are not about what everyone should do or what most people should do to make something pleasing. ("Pleasing" is another word I dislike since photos and music do a lot more than please people, if they please at all, which they do only sometimes.) These "rules" are about what can be done <em>to get a desired effect</em>.</p>

<p>So, for instance, as a general rule a masculine cadence in music feels stronger and more final than a feminine one. (Those terms are going out of fashion, for obvious reasons.) The masculine cadence (ending), in simple terms, is a two-note or two-chord ending on an accented beat. The feminine cadence ends on an unaccented beat, which softens the ending. So, classical and more determined music often ends with a masculine cadence and more romantic music will be a little more likely to end on a feminine cadence.</p>

<p>So, it's not that the rule guides us to what's more pleasing or what is, as a general rule, better to do. It's that it gives us a guideline toward the human response to a certain technical element or combination of elements. I think the same is true with the rule of thirds. It's not about being more pleasing to use it. It's about knowing what dividing a photo in thirds accomplishes and then taking off from there. This is why I posted the out of focus faces I did. It's not about focus being better or more pleasing and it's not about seeing the eyes in a portrait being a general rule as to what works. It's about knowing the differences between seeing something out of focus and seeing something in focus, and making decisions accordingly. And those differences will depend on a lot of contextual and situational factors.</p>

<p>A rule in the visual arts is something like, in general, smaller things appear further away and larger things appear closer. That gives us information with which to work. It doesn't tell us that smaller or bigger is better or more pleasing. Compositional rules may tell us what gives a sense of balance, but balance can be as displeasing (and often is) as pleasing. So, the rule should not be read as steering us more towards balanced compositions. It should be read as telling us how to get one, if we want one, and how not to get one if we are going for a composition that puts the viewer a bit off balance, which is very often effective and desirable.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>All good points Fred. I was thinking that "rule" is a word most people don't like. We don't like being told what to do. The school has rules you must follow. You have to follow your parent's rules. Etc. So I was thinking of a less demanding word. How about principle?</p>

<p>It kind of defines what is without demanding you to do anything. <em>Principle of Thirds. </em> Yeah. I like that better.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>"Aesthetic considerations are indeed <em>always</em> extraneous to an object's function or 'reason to be.' Unless of course, that object's 'reason to be' is strictly aesthetic." — <em>J. Kosuth</em></p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Interesting article.<br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1304360703/breaking-the-rules">http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1304360703/breaking-the-rules</a></p>

[dan_south]

A restaurant has rules. Wash hands before preparing food. Keep refrigeration units under 40 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

These are low level rules. They are important in that they prevent disasters, but they don't tell the chef how to make a

good souffle or a tasty steak dinner. He or she will need more sophisticated procedures in order to create a fine dining

experience.

 

The rule of thirds, or the suggestion to offset the placement of subjects and horizon lines, is a low level rule. It's aimed at

preventing disasters. It does not assist the photographer in creating meaningful and aesthetically pleasing images any

more than washing hands helps a chef to create an award winning pasta sauce.

 

Aesthetics are influenced by higher level rules, complex decisions based on taste and accumulated experience. If the

aesthetics of an image (photo, drawing, or painting) are based on low level rules such as the rule of thirds, the image

suffers, because low level rules have limited influence on aesthetics.

[dfperrault]

<p>It is hard to discriminate what factors of aesthetics are based purely on the physiology of the brain, and how those physiological factors vary across humans. Also, how ascetics are influenced/developed though culture, education, geography, etc.</p>

<p>You also may want to look at it from the music aesthetics and try to draw analogy to the visual system, there will be some similarities and differences. I suggest this because there are several books on the brain and music.</p>

<p> I have listed several books that you may want to read. I would start with book#1- I am going to read it myself.</p>

<p>1. Vision and Art: The Biology of Seeing [Paperback]<br />Margaret S. Livingstone (neurobiologist at Harvard)</p>

 

 

 

 

<p>2. Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See<br>

Donald D. Hoffman</p>

<p>3. Cognition and the Visual Arts<br>

Robert L. Solso</p>

<p>4. Art and Visual Perception ( this has been the bible for a long time)<br>

Rudolph Arnheim </p>

<p>5. The Power of the Center: A Study of Composition in the Visual Arts<br>

Rudolf Arnheim</p>

 

 

 

[doug_williams4]

<p>Don,<br>

Thanks for the suggestions. I never thought of it but I think the music analogy is a good one.<br>

Doug</p>

[nozar_kishi]

<p>"Rules of Composition" are contradicting themselves. If a rule is to do X in order to please eyes, why not then to let the eyes pick what pleases it, without X? If "eye" is the final judge, why not then let it lead the composition, at the first place, instead of the rule? One doesn’t need either to follow nor counter a rule, but to ignore it.</p>