pictures that break composition rules

[Kirk Gittings]

[Kirk Gittings]

I did not know there were rules to break.

There shouldn't be but there are.

[Peter Lewin]

Kirk: I'm not sure anything from Strand's "Time In New England" can break the rules! I thought that if anything, the icons of photography were the ones who defined the rules... (Or variants might be, "If Paul Strand can't break the rules, who can?" or "Far be it from me to criticize Paul Strand!")

[jp]

My Mortensen 1946 copy of "On the negative" seems written to a intermediate skilled audience and Mortensen discourages soft photos and puts forth lotsa rules. I guarantee it's a case of do as I say not as I do. His "The Model" book is clearly helpful advice and not hard rules though and is written to a more advanced audience.

[Kirk Gittings]

Kirk: I'm not sure anything from Strand's "Time In New England" can break the rules! I thought that if anything, the icons of photography were the ones who defined the rules... (Or variants might be, "If Paul Strand can't break the rules, who can?" or "Far be it from me to criticize Paul Strand!")

maybe it's break the "norms".

[Toyon]

I know about the creation of Chistina's World and respect it always, have since I was much younger. It is a wonderful painting in so many respects.

I gather you are objecting to the commercial marque of my photo.
Yes, I agree with you, but commercialism was not the intent.
It was something about the era in which it was made.

Best,
Jac

I don't object to the commercial marque. The Wyeth painting contains a powerful meaning in an original image. The photograph uses familiar tropes and symbols with a message of hedonistic vacuity. Clever by being in its way of being the antithesis of the Wyeth picture. The woman, essetentially a mindless bearer of a borrowed corporate personality. The bike a potent symbol of simulated, purchased manhood. The fields and barns - someone else's labor and someone else's world. A good photograph.

[SergeiR]

Guys.. I am sure we all can use google here.. Seriously - there are rules of composition, they been developed prior to days of photography and continuously upgraded. Its virtually impossible to break them and yet have picture that would be memorable.

Now there are plenty of general guidelines and "folks wisdom" in photographers world - that been going on/off with trends. Like "everything should be tack sharp" "there should be always rule of thirds positioning" "people should not look away from frame" and so on. Those we can outplay and every generation got its own heroes that go and do.

But truly classical rules - good look figuring out how to make good picture without having contrast. Or making something that would be totally out of paths. Or something that wouldn't have at least white/black patterns and so on

IMHO - its easier to concentrate on shooting than on trying to breaking something But then what would i know , right.

[Kirk Gittings]

[Jac@stafford.net]

Guys.. I am sure we all can use google here..

That is an impoverished way to pursue knowledge as it concerns art.

Seriously - there are rules of composition, they been developed prior to days of photography and continuously upgraded. Its virtually impossible to break them and yet have picture that would be memorable.

I accept that accept that as a challenge, and I am certain many other will, too.

[RSalles]

That is an impoverished way to pursue knowledge as it concerns art.



I accept that accept that as a challenge, and I am certain many other will, too.

Without rules, no challenge, no ref point to go nor toward neither against it. That's what we're talking about, or something else as nihilism in art?

Cheers,

Renato