> annsan writes: > I'm jumping into this late - forgive me if what I am going to say has been > said multiple times recently in some fashion or another - I've been overly and > crazily busy for a few weeks and you guys are really getting especially chatty > these days! > > anyway..... > Mike, didn't Mark say right up front they were rules to (perhaps) be broken? > I never took a photography class myself, but I did take art classes back in > the > 60's and then read > and read and read more about photography, and looked and looked > more at works of accomplished photographers. > > My 2 cents on the subject follows: > > No one is even going to teach someone who has no vision at all to produce > photos > > that are much beyond a document, I certainly agree with that opinion, Mike. > But > > I think photography is way beyond the process of "recognition and reaction" > when it is at its best. Photography can do a lot of things a painting cannot > do. > It can put a brush in the hands of someone that does not have the mechanical > aptitude (dare I say "digital"?:)) to make a statement, point out something > beautiful, > recreate a moment, etc. And, of course, to capture instantly that "decisive > moment". > > But you can't break the rules (if you need to) without learning them first. > There > are some who follow many of them without having learned them from someone else > or even from books. But there are few accomplished photographers, I wager, > who > do not understand things like "leading the eye". > > I think to learn the craft aspects of photography and art it would be a good > exercise > to examine side by side a truly terrible photo and a great one and break it > down > > using those rules as a check list. One might also select a wonderful image > (yeah, it is subjective, of course) and find where it breaks the composition > rules and why it works > anyway. The thing about the rules is that they are elements of composition, > not > really rules. > bad word, rules. I hate rules. They have, I believe, been developed from > observations of art and a bit of science. The leading the eye thing is a > phenomenon of nature. > > MIke J wrote... > >> It may work--may work--for watercolor paintings, but photographing is a >> process of >> recognition and reaction, isn't it? > > Ann got into that above... > >> One might build or plan paintings, but I >> can't imagine having the time and control to tick off item after item on the >> "composition checklist." > > You never planned a photograph? Ever? Didn't ever wait somewhere for the > light to change, or a person to appear, or a baby to smile or whatever? Never > previsualized? > > Like the "if you have to ask, you don't know" comment regarding > jazz, if you had to consciously go through the check list you might not be a > photographer. > Or an artist. > > >> That site makes me want to go spend an hour at a Mark Rothko exhibit. <s> >> >> --Mike > > The only thing that scares me about the site is that there are undoubtedly > people who > think they can learn to be an artist from it, rather than breaking down what > it > is in > art they see and like that makes it work. > > Rothko is not to my taste, but like Morris Louis and Kenneth Noland others who > explored color in the 50's and later, I bet he knew how to draw :) > > Am I gonna regret getting into this???
Annsan, Hmm, well, probably! I'm guessing at this point that everyone has more or less had their say on the issue, although I'm interested to read your perspective on it. So far: --The semantic argument we seem to be coming down to is whether "you need to know the rules to break them"; --Many would like a different word than "rules"; --A few believe that "the rules," like math in Bob B.'s view, are eternal verities that exist independent of us; --Many people seem to have a cranky faith that rules are good and good for you, but so far, statements of exactly which rules are useful have been harder to come by (probably understandable, since the prevailing environment is known to be hostile); --Those agreeing with me are fewer in number but infinitely nobler of heart and more eloquent of argument [ <bseg> ]; --BR has spewed venom and invective; --Bob W. has pointed out that I wrote an article about the rules *I* follow and that my PUG entry follows the "rule of thirds," which probably ought to have shut me up, but didn't; --and I still think that most "rules" are better ignored, that people are more likely to flower if they are given water and nourishment love and then left unmolested and unoppressed to their own devices. In other words, it has followed more or less the course of typical 18th century debates on teaching Virtue to children. I think that about summarizes it so far.... --Mike
