Rules of Composition -391

A clarification of what Paul believes to be the bottom line principles, non-negotiables, of composition and a bit of conversation about rules and other things that just ain’t so helpful, plus some useful shoptalk surrounding the process like certain things to avoid.
In Response to
William W
QUESTION: I am interested in any "rule of composition" to guide me to a “work of art”! I played with acetate overlays when I first heard about Dynamic Symmetry. It was/is interesting; I learned from it! I agree the Masters (probably) didn’t draw grids on their later paintings, but were they aware of DynSym (or golden mean), was it part of their early education and awareness? You became aware of it. Someone defined and taught the Elements and Principles of design, rules-of-thirds, use odd numbers, etc. what is the difference? Likely their teachers used words and movement lines (as in arabesque) to define WHY good composition works. Learn the rules and decide when to break them. Isn’t it all about awareness for new artists like me? I like painting blues musicians; I have a choice of positioning the area of interest, angle of their guitar, their mic, or arm. Sure, will I consider DS… as well as other compositional elements. I look at watercolor competitions and try to figure out why these paintings were selected/won. Which “rules” did they follow (that I am aware of) and NOT. I also like local galleries and amateur shows and see paintings that do-not-entertain me and try to figure out why not! (My private critique). I recently discovered your lecture videos and am enjoying the education!! Thanks
William W

[@shawnvales3350]

Another great one Paul. It's so helpful to hear your thoughts on this because it encourages me to trust myself and not rely solely on what I've learned.

[@PaulIngbretson]

Wonderful!

[@Ilya-woodenlipstick]

This one is so elevating , thank you, Paul and Mr; Producer!!

[@olh_hlo]

I really enjoyed that. Thanks. Those rules can often stand out as such. Like a painting in uniform.

[@querenstewart9944]

Hi Paul Thanks again for your time and effort Rules are just another way of( as you say naming the pig ) a way to start a conversation on the visual . Two people who are looking at the same painting and are seeing it differently to get what they want to say across to the other person. Just to say look isn't a discussion but by using existing rules and theory that is already out there and understood by people is a way of communication so each one is on the same page. Rules are just another way of having that conversation with your self as is the conversation with all the other horses that we have with ourselves. Sorry this is not as well stated as the last version but my computer shut down on me before I head finished. Thanks again Sheila

[@PaulIngbretson]

Hate it when that happens ( But, yes.

[@heatherh3457]

Absolutely. I have seen so many commentators struggling to justify a composition in line with some theory like golden mean or rule of thirds and they have to stretch it so far that I'm surprised it doesn't snap back and hit them in the face. Two objects keeps the eyes moving back and forth in a straight line whereas three creates a rotational movement without abrupt stops so provides a smooth flow of movement.

[@PaulIngbretson]

Yes, and more!

[@olh_hlo]

Sometimes it makes me laugh when commentators tell me my eyes are guided this and such a way, and I'm thinking 'no they aren't'.

[@heatherh3457]

@@olh_hlo Exactly!!!😄

[@RickyFulcher]

Thanks

[@PaulIngbretson]

Welcome

[@jazw4649]

Hi Paul, you did a video on Dynamic Symmetry a while back based on my questions of using it. It's interesting that you point the student to looking at the Greek vase. There is a book called Dynamic Symmetry The Greek Vase by Jay Hambidge The pdf is readily available online because it was written before the time of copyrights. I think the author is referring more to the shapes of Greek vases as opposed to the pictures on them though. I'm still really interested in how elements come together in a painting. You had mentioned elements touching or almost touching and coming too close to the edge of the picture plain as some no-no's that will make the viewer feel uncomfortable. (Solomon Solomon? Is there a reference somewhere to these rules?) Is it not good to have areas of tension in a painting? I'm thinking of the old master still life paintings where things are placed precariously, like a knife balancing on the edge of a counter, a scrunched up table cloth or a vase that has been overturned. Some of the old dead guy paintings that depict freshly killed game almost look as though there was a struggle that ensued before the death of the bird or animal. Is this perhaps the painter saying something about life being a struggle? I have another question though kind of in the same vein but related to portraiture. I've been working on some extreme close up paintings of faces. I have found it interesting that with the body language removed, how important the gaze is in portraiture. As related to the comfort of the viewer of the painting, is it better to have the subject looking at something else in the picture, looking at something outside of the picture plain or looking directly at the viewer. Advertising in magazines are usually direct eye contact, but in a paintings it seems different somehow. I've been reading about Diegesis in film, the telling of a story by the narrator. Intra-diegetic is looking at something else within the picture and Extra-Diegetic is looking at something outside the picture which could also be the viewer. Does the direct gaze make the viewer feel part of the scene, or suggest a connection between you and what's happening or can it be interpreted as more judgemental, make the viewer feel uncomfortable with the gaze of the subject on them. Thank you Paul and Mr Producer 💜 I love these talks

[@PaulIngbretson]

Not 'accidental' tension, I would say. I'm interested in the diegesis idea, thanks, jazw.

[@oowaz]

Yeah the issue with calling those personal observations rules is that you will find that they're not true for every possible scenario. A rule would need to be true everytime, zero times any number is zero, that's something we all agree on. You couldn't get everyone to agree that a figure must always be off-center to create an interesting picture, so it can't be a rule, it's not absolute, it's not consistent, it's not restrictive, it's just a guideline

[@PaulIngbretson]

Very well said...important, too. Thx

[@sketchartist1964]

The placing of a head in a portrait shouldn't be too high or too low, and making a line of the body run down to a corner of the canvas should be avoided as should parallel lines.

[@PaulIngbretson]

Running into corners is definitely on the list.

[@stephenjamison6124]

I think "rules" should be replaced by guidence. By all means bear the theories in mind but only use them as a steer towards getting the finished composition.

[@PaulIngbretson]

Fair enough