mount desert island, maine Storm on the Coastline

Jeremy, you went way past where I ever did in this article. This was just the best I could find on-line about the subject (the elements and principles of design/art) and the coverage of those things is consistent with what is in most art books on the subject.

But, that doesn't mean you aren't really on to something. The point is that IF we don't have a clue about the purpose of an image, we might actually discover it by analyzing what is there--and it is these principles that allow us to do that in a more objective way. Too often we suggest a crop to eliminate what seems out of place or unimportant or that something seems too busy or the colors are sickly or whatever. I don't know that we often consider the role those things we don't see favorably might have played within the "purpose" of the author of the image. When I view the works by someone I have reason to believe really knows what they are doing, I assume that everything is intentional whereas I might look at a beginner's photo somewhat differently--that is why I generally look for "context" in the rest of their postings or in links to other work. I can get a better sense of what is purposeful or not--but not necessarily with total certainty.

And that really is the lead in to what you are talking about here, Context. If one really wants to understand a piece of art, it is important to have context--that doesn't preclude the ability to appreciate something without it. But we generally get more of an appreciation of some art knowing it how/why/when/for what purpose it was made.

An example where such context could go either way might be coming upon a group of landscapes in a gallery--beautiful, bucolic landscapes. Without any more context, one person might see them as beautiful and restful--wonderful images and want to purchase one. The next person might see them as rather ordinary shots of the landscape and OK, but a dime a dozen. Then, each viewer finds out that these are images of places where heinous and horrific crimes took place. The first person is now repelled and sickened while the second now sees these in a more interesting light and finds them fascinating.

Another element of what you are referring to is the old "form follows function" when we are talking more functional design and maybe more a sense that "form informs content" in art. Where form is what is actually there while content is the meaning that is expressed by what is there and how it was presented.

Talking about context, knowing whether an image is real or "created" also provides a context from which to judge, understand, like, etc., the image.

Grats on the pic of the week...great image...even the framing help set the mood of the image..

Bella illustrazione.

I really love the beautiful light illuminating the textures and details of the foreground rocks and lighthouse. Very well done. Is the sky the original sky? I'd prefer it if the white fluffy clouds weren't there as it draws my eye away from the beautiful foreground leading up to the lighthouse. If the sky were just dark and gloomy, i.e., less contrast, and was more background than the feature, I believe it would be a stronger image. However, it's still a beautiful image...and Anthony, you did a wonderful job with the composition and post-processing work. I've been to this lighthouse and have seen many images of it. This is a fabulous interpretation of it.

I don't like this image - image because I can't bring myself to call it a photograph. It's actually an assembly of photographs and as an artistic image it fails because the light isn't consistent throughout. If you look at the small tree trunk to the right of the lighthouse its reflecting light on it's left side, while the stormy clouds are back lit from a source to the upper right. The more I look at it the more I feel manipulated.