pictures that break composition rules
I recall seeing some famous portraits with appendages cut off, perspective distortion, lines leading out of the frame, tops of heads cut off etc. Can you think of specific examples either from photography or painting that an art teacher may have scolded you for but nevertheless is famous?
Re: pictures that break composition rules
1) soft elements in composition (lack of DOF)
2) no soft elements in composition (too much DOF)
3) no black tones
4) too many/much black tones
Re: pictures that break composition rules
Well if the picture is of Winston Churchill, viewers won't notice. But if it's a picture of your kid brother, you better compose better.
Re: pictures that break composition rules
Ladies & gentlemen, prepare yourselves to the show of horrors...
:o
BetterSense, just kidding, even when braking the supposed rules I find myself on the path of rules or flexing its muscles.
Last week I saw a terrific shot here at the forum with a "reverse" rule applied which I just loved,
Cheers,
Renato
Re: pictures that break composition rules
I did not know there were rules to break.
Re: pictures that break composition rules
The only rules I had in high school art class were to be on time, don't ingest the photo chemicals, clean up after you're done, and don't misbehave enough to get sent to the principal's office.
Gertrude Kasebier's "Miss N" portrait is an interesting example of cut-off-head composition. It looks like the subject leaned forward to the camera/you after composition. Of course that's not the case as it would be out of focus with large format, but it still provokes that idea. Perfect abuse of contemporary academic composition, but masterful use of notan style of composition.
Re: pictures that break composition rules
I posted a picture on the trains thread a few years ago that someone said "broke a rule but worked anyway", but I didn't know the rule then and don't know it now.
Re: pictures that break composition rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wayne
I posted a picture on the trains thread a few years ago that someone said "broke a rule but worked anyway", but I didn't know the rule then and don't know it now.
I think you should re-post your train right here.
All the well-meaning forum critics will happily identify the broken rule you're curious about, plus many more besides.
And I bet your image would be better than its critics. ;^)
Re: pictures that break composition rules
I've always found this Steichen image to be visually striking despite--or beacuse of?--the fact that the background is in focus and subject isn't, not to mention the cropped head and torso.
http://kolstad.us/ebay/Steichen-Black-Vase.jpg
Jonathan
Re: pictures that break composition rules
Does anyone even use the term rules of composition anymore? It's such an archaic idea.
We should at least agree that they're evolving all the time. Consider that Robert Frank was lambasted by photo critics for breaking all the rules with "The Americans." But for anyone who grew up after the '50s, that book defined half the rules.
Never mind Friedlander or Winogrand. They broke a lot of rules, but influenced at least three generations. Keep in mind those guys did much of their seminal work a half century ago. Looking farther backwards, what about the impressionists? The cubists? For at least the last 150 years, new rules were created by every generation. If you play by your grandfather's rules, you're probably not the one controlling the narrative.
[Edited to add: I am suspicious of anyone's claims to not know the rules. In art as in culture, the most powerful and controlling rules are often the insidious ones that no one articulates. Remember David Foster Wallace's point that fish don't know they're swimming in water. We should all beware of assumptions we make about "good" and "bad" photographs. Do we know what rules inform our intuitions on this? Are we open to questioning them?]