Re: "we don't need no stinkin' rules"
FWIW, these are my two "rules" 1- Rules are meant to be broken 2- If it works, it works Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 11:31 PM Subject: Re: "we don't need no stinkin' rules" > > It's not semantics. It's simple logic. How can one consciously interact > > with something they don't know exists? (break a rule) Only the person > > who knows the rule exists can know that the rule has been broken. > > > Bruce: THERE ARE NO RULES. You photograph by looking at things and showing > them with your camera. Arrange things in the viewfinder by LOOKING at the > viewfinder and choosing what looks best to you. If you're good at it, other > people will know it. If you aren't good at it, then at least you've > satisfied yourself. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to know one > single rule in order to photograph well, and many great photographers NEVER > think or speak of such things. > > If you have guidelines for yourself, fine. If other people find it helpful > to use guidelines, fine. If other people find it interesting to deconstruct > composition ex post facto, fine. They can do whatever they want. I can do > whatever I want. You can do whatever you want. You know why? Because THERE > ARE NO RULES. > > --Mike > >
Re: "we don't need no stinkin' rules"
Pal, If you meant this, I would subscribe to every single word of this statement, including punctuation marks. Pity you didn't -- but it still summarizes it very nicely. That's the definition of art, be it photography, music or mathematics. That's it --- no rules, lifetime of frustration and a faint hope of striking "it" somehow someday. Mishka > If there are no rules, there are no good images as > theres nothing separate between them. After all, > everything is possible so everything must be equally > good. Furthermore, if there are no rules every > photographer is doomed to lifetime of frustration as > it is impossible to produce good images on a > consistent basis as all there is to it is pointing > the camera in random direction and hope for luck. > > PÅl
Re: "we don't need no stinkin' rules"
Pål wrote: >> If you have guidelines for yourself, fine. If other people find it helpful >> to use guidelines, fine. If other people find it interesting to deconstruct >> composition ex post facto, fine. They can do whatever they want. I can do >> whatever I want. You can do whatever you want. > > > You can't do whatever you want and created interesting or good images, something every > photographer have bitterly experienced. > > >> You know why? Because THERE >> ARE NO RULES. > > > If there are no rules, there are no good images as theres nothing separate between > them. After all, everything is possible so everything must be equally good. > Furthermore, if there are no rules every photographer is doomed to lifetime of > frustration as it is impossible to produce good images on a consistent basis as all > there is to it is pointing the camera in random direction and hope for luck. > > Pål No, it is not about rules it is about awareness, what you are talking about. Certainly, knowing how the brain-eye system works helps to increase the awareness. But these are not rules. E.g. the "rule of the third" is not as "rule" it is sort of an the effect of how the brain-eye system works. An image may be felt as "good" because of following that "rule" or because of disregarding it depending on what you want to show. A good photograph is one that we remember. That is quite simple. Take 10 photographs you remember and you will see that every image is perceived as "good" for different reasons. Or "rules" in your diction - you can probably derive hundreds of "rules" from these 10 images. Quite obviously, it does not work like this. Photography is about seeing, awareness, imagination and "understanding" (I mean "understanding" the story behind the picture) ... Enjoy, Alexander __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: "we don't need no stinkin' rules"
>> It's not semantics. Yes it is - the thread (for full emphasis) should read: "We doan' need no steenkin' rules". ;-) This will be my only contribution to these "Rules" threads. Fred
Re: "we don't need no stinkin' rules"
Mike wrote: >If you're good at it, other > people will know it. If you aren't good at it, then at least you've > satisfied yourself. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to know one > single rule in order to photograph well, and many great photographers NEVER > think or speak of such things. You constantly mix-up thinking about rules, talking about rules or any other conscious effort about rules with applying rules. People are taking advantage of gravity every day without thinking about it or talking about it. > If you have guidelines for yourself, fine. If other people find it helpful > to use guidelines, fine. If other people find it interesting to deconstruct > composition ex post facto, fine. They can do whatever they want. I can do > whatever I want. You can do whatever you want. You can't do whatever you want and created interesting or good images, something every photographer have bitterly experienced. >You know why? Because THERE > ARE NO RULES. If there are no rules, there are no good images as theres nothing separate between them. After all, everything is possible so everything must be equally good. Furthermore, if there are no rules every photographer is doomed to lifetime of frustration as it is impossible to produce good images on a consistent basis as all there is to it is pointing the camera in random direction and hope for luck. Pål
Re: "we don't need no stinkin' rules"
> It's not semantics. It's simple logic. How can one consciously interact > with something they don't know exists? (break a rule) Only the person > who knows the rule exists can know that the rule has been broken. Bruce: THERE ARE NO RULES. You photograph by looking at things and showing them with your camera. Arrange things in the viewfinder by LOOKING at the viewfinder and choosing what looks best to you. If you're good at it, other people will know it. If you aren't good at it, then at least you've satisfied yourself. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to know one single rule in order to photograph well, and many great photographers NEVER think or speak of such things. If you have guidelines for yourself, fine. If other people find it helpful to use guidelines, fine. If other people find it interesting to deconstruct composition ex post facto, fine. They can do whatever they want. I can do whatever I want. You can do whatever you want. You know why? Because THERE ARE NO RULES. --Mike
Re: "we don't need no stinkin' rules"
It's not semantics. It's simple logic. How can one consciously interact with something they don't know exists? (break a rule) Only the person who knows the rule exists can know that the rule has been broken. Example: You come into my house and walk through the living room. You've just broken the house rule of not wearing shoes in the house. I tell you that you have to pay a $25 fine for breaking a house rule. You say, "Are you nuts? What rule?" Now you've broken one the forbidden house words rule, and I say, "Now you owe $50 in fines". You yell, "I'm leaving!", and walk out the door. I yell after you, "That's $75! You didn't say may I?" BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --The semantic argument we seem to be coming down to is whether "you need to know the rules to break them";
Re: "we don't need no stinkin' rules"
Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >In other words, it has followed more or less the course of typical 18th >century debates on teaching Virtue to children. ...and it's been just about as effective :-P (But *infinitely* more educational.) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: "we don't need no stinkin' rules"
> 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. >> >> --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 [ ]; --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
Re: "we don't need no stinkin' rules" was -Chicken****
Mike Johnston wrote: quoting Mark (Roberts? yes?) > > More rules to follow and to deliberately break: > > http://website.lineone.net/~peter.saw/ctutor/cmpsitn.htm > > Mark, > Much as I respect you and like your work, I think we'll just have to agree > to disagree (which, by the bye, I really don't mind doing). I think that > site is just dreadful, its suggestions possibly among the worst things I > could imagine for a photographer to clutter his or her mind with. 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. > > --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
