C'mon, Brad. If you want to contribute to a debate you're going to have
to do better than that.
chris
On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, Brad Dobo wrote:
> Still a load of bunk no matter the thought or education behind it. There is
> no doubt that mathematics and physics were around long before we ever even
> thought of the terminology. Proof of this is everywhere you look.
>
> Relation to photography? Nothing and everything.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 12:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Aethetics and clear thinking
>
>
> > Don,
> > Some very interesting and thoughtful posts. Thanks.
> >
> > I agree with those who say there is no "golden mean" in nature. Finding a
> > few examples as "proof" is like that famous list of coincidences between
> > Lincoln and Kennedy, or the way fortune tellers work ("I see the color
> > red...the color red has some importance for you..." "Hey, I used to have a
> > red car! How did you know that?").
> >
> > I can honestly say I have *never* paid the slightest attention to any of
> the
> > so-called "rules" of composition. Looking at pictures, the "rule of
> thirds"
> > is no more valid than the "rule of fourths" or the "rule of fifths" or any
> > other fraction. For that matter, there are thousands of interesting
> pictures
> > with the subject smack dab in the middle of the frame. And if pressed, I
> > could probably come up with several new "rules" which could be found to be
> > applicable to a number of successful and well-known photographs.
> >
> > If anything, oversimplified deconstruction of "composition" (strictly
> > speaking, photographers don't compose) keeps people from seeing. And if
> > anyone is beset by any of these "rules" floating about in their heads, I
> > would probably counsel them to get out and try their hardest to violate
> > them.
> >
> > --Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > >> Cause and Effect
> > >>
> > >> There is something about the 'Golden Section', the 'Golden Triangle',
> the
> > >> 'Golden Proportions' or 'Rule of Thirds' or any other name one cares to
> > >> choose for these elusive photographic or pictorial qualities, that is
> > >> unconducive to clear thinking. Pentax users, amongst the most
> intelligent of
> > >> photographers, if only for their choice of lenses, are no better at
> sorting
> > >> it out than anyone else. Why? Because Nature does not obey any
> mathematical
> > >> rules.
> > >>
> > >> Numbers mean nothing to a virus particle (virion) or a crystal of gold,
> or
> > >> the amorphous aggregation of crystals found in steel, or the bones of
> my
> > >> leg. The arrangement of the capsomers that form the envelope of an
> > >> icosahedral virion for example, is not such because of numbers, but
> because
> > >> of the nature of the different capsomers themselves. Some are
> pentagonal
> > >> others hexagonal. They fit together neatly. The shape is determined by
> their
> > >> own sub-units and how they tend to join and the shape of these are in
> turn
> > >> determined by genetic information. They are built upon genetic
> templates
> > >> and their structure is determined by either RNA or DNA which carries
> the
> > >> 'blueprint' for construction. We can now draw beautiful diagrams of how
> > >> these all fit together and write mathematical formulae that predict how
> this
> > >> comes about. Geodesic domes and Virus particles are similar in
> construction.
> > >> Forgive me for being simplistic here.
> > >>
> > >> Now along comes a nutty Creationist who say's, "See how even the humble
> > >> viruses obey God's Mathematical Laws of Nature?" He sits down and
> starts to
> > >> calculate. This is how it usually starts. Numbers can ~only~ be used to
> > >> describe what happens in nature, not to determine it: But even then
> only up
> > >> to a point. In some cases with great accuracy, in others only
> approximately,
> > >> most times not at all.
> > >>
> > >> To say that there is a mathematical rule for beautiful composition is
> like
> > >> making a rule for my behaviour from the information (usually erroneous)
> that
> > >> when I was born the planets were arranged in a particular way. Because
> of
> > >> this fortunate, or unfortunate coincidence, I must needs do, or not,
> this or
> > >> that, on certain days of the week, month or year because my existence
> and
> > >> the course of my life will forever be determined by this load of crap.
> > >>
> > >> Make your pictures look good and forget about 'Golden' anything. You
> could
> > >> spend a lifetime measuring masterpieces in museums and galleries around
> the
> > >> world and constructing diagrams from them ... but it will only lead you
> back
> > >> to square one.
> >
>
>
>
