A popular photographic journal recently published supplement on composition. It included illustration of all the usual suspects. I wrote to the Editor but received (understandably) a less than enthusiastic response- actually nothing at all. I thought it might be of interest to publish it after all. I have sent this to LIP, an organisation interested in all sorts of things.
Whilst I accept that composition gives the photographer a basic framework for making acceptable images, I do take issue about the effects all his could have in holding back the progress of the photographer once he or she has mastered these rather risky basics.
For many years I have suggested to photographers that they should carefully compose their image in the viewfinder, then take two steps to the right. That will often ensure a badly composed picture but a more interesting result.
I have sometimes seen new members come to my photographic society. They have just taken up photography. Without any knowledge of composition, they often produce very direct, lively and challenging images.
In the fullness of time and with the enthusiastic assistance of the monthly print competitions, their work becomes more standardised, but they will achieve better marks.
Composition is derived from Victorian aesthetic sensibility having little relevance in today’s frenetic and rapidly changing world
Composition as we know and love it tends to make images look like each other. Everything is carefully laid out for the viewer, There are no challenges. Eyes bounce off images, moving on out of sheer boredom. The ’composed’ mage often feels quite dead, although photography is about death.
What then are the qualities that make a really great photographic work?
The image, or the photographer has recorded is the motif. That is to say the starting point. What is shown is not necessarily the subject matter of the image. That may be something incorporated within it that cannot be expressed in words or in any other way. The image(s) should engage the viewer at one or more levels. In order to do this, there has to be some ambiguity in the image, things left unsaid or just hinted at.
The viewer’s imagination has to be stimulated in order to take part in the creative process. Surely, the successful image needs to be a partnership of the imagination between the photographer and the viewer. I really wonder if composition helps in any way.
It could be of some value to look at how painters deal with these problems.
Degas, for example, also took photographs.
Looking at many of his paintings, composition, as we know and love it, has been completely subverted in most interesting ways.
It is also worthwhile analyse the works of great photographers in order to try to understand why many of their images are works of art.
I have always been disappointed that formal composition has been so assiduously promoted in amateur circles and is considered so important.
I think photographers need to be more ambitious.
Edward Bowman.
