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. > > > > >