Basic Landscape Composition Formulas..

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...]
IMO, it is arrogant and naive to believe foundational form by mean of geometric composition is not with adhering to when one of the great gifts of the human condition is pattern recognition directly tied to emotional response then memory.

Formal composition is as import to understand as it is to misunderstand. When it works its pragmatic virtue is what matters. It helps to realize some cultural perceptual differences, too, for example a culture in which media was presented on scrolls, the part that rolls off (top or side) implies that composition continues beyond the immediate frame.

Psychology studies perceptual errors. Apophenia: False pattern recognition. Also see Patternicity. There are more terms or topic headers, of course, but a challenge to 2D artists is to exploit them when appropriate. That is not breaking rules. It is creativity.

Rule One: don't be trapped in your culture's proclivity to hard metrics just because they are easy to explain.

(aside: I love this old video)

[Bernice Loui]

Aka, understanding and appreciating the way Nature really is to the very best of one's ability then trying their best to make a deal with the way Nature really is in a Symbolic effort for a given intent & goal.

The human eye-brain-mind is often and easily fooled in various ways.


Bernice.

Psychology studies perceptual errors. Apophenia: False pattern recognition. Also see Patternicity. There are more terms or topic headers, of course, but a challenge to 2D artists is to exploit them when appropriate. That is not breaking rules. It is creativity.

Rule One: don't be trapped in your culture's proclivity to hard metrics just because they are easy to explain.

(aside: I love this video)

[Tin Can]

Great video. but all the data is upside down from my POV.

Art rules are for the timid.

Rage, rage against the dying of darkness...

Formal composition is as import to understand as it is to misunderstand. When it works its pragmatic virtue is what matters. It helps to realize some cultural perceptual differences, too, for example a culture in which media was presented on scrolls, the part that rolls off (top or side) implies that composition continues beyond the immediate frame.

Psychology studies perceptual errors. Apophenia: False pattern recognition. Also see Patternicity. There are more terms or topic headers, of course, but a challenge to 2D artists is to exploit them when appropriate. That is not breaking rules. It is creativity.

Rule One: don't be trapped in your culture's proclivity to hard metrics just because they are easy to explain.

(aside: I love this video)

[Ken Lee]

Stonehenge
Paul Caponigro, circa 1970

A critic or analyst can identify certain principles at work, but that's always after the fact. What makes a really successful photo is the combination of basic formulas with a sense of surprise or discovery.

Without the elements of play and spontaneity, this game would have been over a long time ago.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

To which I would add that in many respects our beautiful earth is already wonderfully "composed".

Too many words are wasted defining and categorizing what we instinctively enjoy looking at. What is wrong with looking at a photograph and just saying, "I like it" without having to define it? Or again, trusting the language that is photography, and let the photograph, and that thing that is portrayed, speak for itself.

[Bernice Loui]

Can the artist attempt to give a truthful, creative, expressive "voice" to the beauty of Nature without stunting their innate-inherient Beauty with human intentions?


Bernice

To which I would add that in many respects our beautiful earth is already wonderfully "composed".

[Tin Can]

No if we use a device. Perhaps yes if we use only human memory as we are part of the environment.

Can the artist attempt to give a truthful, creative, expressive "voice" to the beauty of Nature without stunting their innate-inherient Beauty with human intentions?


Bernice

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

The "artist" certainly didn't create nature. He/she saw something that in his/her own mind thought was significant or special and decided to make an image of it, hoping that somebody else might in some way think the same or close to it. Its fine if people want to waste a lot of words defining it. A lot of people earn their living doing that. When I look at photographs I don't need anyone to tell me whether its "composed" properly, or its good, or wonderful, etc. All I need to do is look at it, and what is being portrayed, and I instinctively know whether it speaks to me and what it says to me. That might not be what the "artist" intended it to say, and that may be one of the risks of "putting it out there" to be judged, but that is a risk you have to take if you want to be a so called "artist".

[goamules]

Stonehenge
Paul Caponigro, circa 1970

A critic or analyst can identify certain principles at work, but that's always after the fact. What makes a really successful photo is the combination of basic formulas with a sense of surprise or discovery.

Without the elements of play and spontaneity, this game would have been over a long time ago.

Exactly what I was thinking. I glanced at that "formulas for landscapes" page and thought, "one can take just about ANY photograph, and overlay one of those many formats and say 'SEE! I'm using the cascading diamond formula'!" Except....it was not intentional. Um, yeah:



There are lots of sites where people draw lines and circles on photos and retroactively explain how good the photographer composed. Other than taking a mountain vista shot but having the mountain obscured by a big tree 6 feet in front of the lens, are there any "wrong" landscapes?!

[Jac@stafford.net]

Can the artist attempt to give a truthful, creative, expressive "voice" to the beauty of Nature without stunting their innate-inherient Beauty with human intentions?

Nature necessarily transcends art. Nature exists without us. My wife has been a gardener for over 65 years and her mission is to grow and multiply what nature gives her. As a photographer all I can do is a poor representation of specimens. That being said I am moved to appreciate any examples where the camera can, by its inherent qualities especially time factors, can expand our appreciation. Some macro work is similarly enlightening.