I defense of straight line compositions...

[HRobinson]

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/06-May-2003/15081-a_dessert_Peale.jpg

This is titled "A Dessert" and it's by Peale from about 1816. I have seen realist compositions in which ALL the objects are lined up. In fact, I was searching for a particular painting that Sister Wendy critiqued but was unable to do so. but with this one you'll get the idea. In case you are a fan of VerMeer, the website below has some clickables. -Harry


http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~roy/vermeer/thumb.html

[BevL]

Yes, Harry. I know I've seen many straight line compositions before, too. Sometimes the background is dark like this, with dramatic lighting, sometimes it is just a plain wall with little shadow or lighting.

I supposed its what you do with that straight line of objects that makes some stand out above others.
I would sure like to understand it.

Bev

[Linoxyn]

Yes Bev, contrast in all aspects (colour, design, values, objects, etc.) of this or any great still life is key to figuring it out... add this to your appetite to learn, to want to know and you'll get there for sure :)

[WFMartin]

Harry,

Wow, what a great Vermeer site! Thank you for posting that.

Bill:D

[jackiesimmonds]

This is a wonderful pic. That decanter in the background is SO important isn't it, as are the diagonal leaves.

Jackie

[madster]

What straight line are we talking about?
The entire image (with the exception of parts of the glassware, which is very subtly a part of the background) is all curves...and a fascinating example of that, for sure...notice the way even the stems of the grapes and the apple and oranges are curved, and how many of the curves meet on the right side (as viewed) of the curved bowl...even the arrangement of the nuts is curved....
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/07-May-2003/11834-Vermeer.jpg
The only straight line is the edge of the table, which provides a wonderful little "banner" type area for the signature...
If I am mis-interpreting what you meant, please clarify, because I just don't know what "straight" lines you are referring to.

[arlene]

I think he was referring to the way the bottom of the items are practically on the same plane...a straight line across.

[madster]

Interesting thought arlene, but it only applies to the outermost objects, the lemon and the farthestmost walnut. Everything else is placed in varying distances on the table. Being that the edge of the table is painted, providing a visual plane reference, everything placed upon that flat line is able to be given a line reference which is straight, but as only two of the objects line up, does that make this work of so many intricate curves a "straight line" composition???

So, Harry, could you please explain a little more what you mean by straight line, and what makes this piece qualify for that catigorization?...perhaps you could name the piece by Sister Wendy for reference.

Bev, could you possibly name a couple other pieces that you think qualify as "straight line" works?

I've tried a web search, but cannot find any dissertations for either classic nor modern works using this type of compositional catagorization. It is an interesting concept, and I would like to find out more.

[HRobinson]

... so throw me back into the oils forum if you want. There was a post we were discussing: http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105574

I should have added it on to that post but I thought it was getting a wee bit off tempo. My intention was to find a certain painting that I saw Sister Wendy critiquing on the boob toob but all I could come up with was the above -- about which madster made some legitimate claims. Of course there is nothing like a straight line but a straight line. Some did get the gist of this post but I felt it was taken a little out of context as it was being discussed elsewhere first. I would appreciate it if those of you that haven't looked at that post do so and bail me out if you can ...and if you dare. -Harry

[BevL]

I'm glad we're discussing this because I want to understand. :)

(well, I mean you go ahead and discuss it.. I'll just listen and learn)


Here is an example. Paul S. Brown, and this is what inspired me to paint onions. I must admit I only gave his work a passing glance and didnt look at how he accomplished such a dramatic painting from simple objects. I just saw it briefly while browsing and thought I could put together a still life using onions and stuff from my kitchen. And actually it was my first painting of the onions that was inspired by this one I post of Paul Browns'. But again, a straight line composition.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/07-May-2003/1746-paulbrown.jpg

[BevL]

btw... maybe someone could explain to me why this composition works. I think for myself in trying to understand composition, it gets very confusing because there are so many conflicting opinions, and rules to obey. Its almost like a long list of 'dont do's', and in my own experience, it seems no matter what I try, I fail compositionally. I dont mind that being pointed out to me, I appreciate the advice and need to learn. But all the same, it confuses me more and I am left not knowing what is right and what is wrong. I try to then just see what looks 'pleasing' to my own eye, and paint it.

Forgive my ignorance in this subject.. I've very little experience and am trying to understand it all. :)

Bev

[jackiesimmonds]

Bev - everyone will probably have different ideas, but here is my take on what is a "straight line" composition, and why this one works so well.

1. A straight-line composition is one which works in fairly straight lines across the rectangle from left to right........like a frieze. This is the important element. Even if, within the stripes of the frieze, there are curving elements, or square elements, nevertheless, they sit within the frieze lines. This artist has used a "frieze"-type composition. We work across the picture from left to right. Howver, he has cleverly prevented us from skipping out of the picture on the right by using a dark shape in the top half which holds the eye in and in fact, even bounces us back in again.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/08-May-2003/1805-onions_frieze.jpg

2. I believe the reason this onion comp works so brilliantly is that there are various things going on within the three frieze panels in this picture, which the artist has deliberately orchestrated. I think these can be boiled down to these main elements:

He is aware of the power, for instance, of COUNTERCHANGE - light against dark. See how light edges are placed against dark areas. We move across the picture in a kind of rythmic dance - dark, light, dark, light, dark, light - but there is variety there too..the dark and and light areas vary in size. More about this below.....

He is aware of the need, in a composition, for UNITY - hence the echoing curving forms. The more you repeat a shape in a painting, like a repeating refrain in a song, the more unity you achieve.

He is aware of the need, however, for VARIETY WITH UNITY. So, the onions have different, varied shapes, different varied bits of peel here and there, which he has used to link one shape with another. The sizes of the light and dark areas vary, as I said above.

He has also varied the widths of the three frieze panels. The top one, the background, is the widest. the middle one, containing the onions, is slightly wider than the bottom one, which is the table front. This bottom one is broken by the light top edge of the table.

He has also ensured that the central frieze panel links with the top one by extending the green bits (stalks?) up into the top part of the picture. These vertical, slightly curving marks, together with the dark panel on the far right, help to break up that top panel into three interesting, varied shapes too.
Quite fascinating, isn't it. The more you look, and analyse, the more you will find here.

I believe you might find it helpful to read some books which concentrate on composition.......but aren't too technical and heavy. See if you can find some which talk about the basic elements of design in painting, such as the ones I have mentioned above, and then sift through to pick out other interesting elements for yourself. There are lots of "rules" on offer, but actually, you dont need to think of them as rules, simply as suggestions to help you along, suggestions that you can use, or dismiss. I find it quite helpful to use SOME of the suggestions from time to time.

I do hope this helps!
Jackie

[BevL]

Jackie, perfect! Thankyou! You explained that very well. I am sure it will also help many others who are following along.

Harry, looking forward to your ideas on the subject of straight line composition.

Back to listening mode.... carry on. :)

Bev

[madster]

Now THAT, I can understand! Thank you, Bev!
The eye can easily discern the straight lines in this work, and yes, it truly does make you stop and wonder why such a simple arrangement is SO captivating.

Jackie, your explanation was helpful beyond belief!
You were able to address all the considerations that help the eye go back and forth repeatedly, especially the 'variety with unity'...a giant KUDO's to you for your clear, yet simple explanation.

Now that I've seen the piece Bev's posted, and read Jackie's explanation, I'm more convinced that the Vermeer, for all it's beauty doesn't really fit the definition of 'straight line' due to the structure of the curves, but am now fascinated by this type of composition.

Many thanks to you both!

[WFMartin]

Originally posted by BevL
btw... maybe someone could explain to me why this composition works. I think for myself in trying to understand composition, it gets very confusing because there are so many conflicting opinions, and rules to obey. Its almost like a long list of 'dont do's', and in my own experience, it seems no matter what I try, I fail compositionally. I dont mind that being pointed out to me, I appreciate the advice and need to learn. But all the same, it confuses me more and I am left not knowing what is right and what is wrong. I try to then just see what looks 'pleasing' to my own eye, and paint it.

Forgive my ignorance in this subject.. I've very little experience and am trying to understand it all. :)

Bev

Bev,

Don't feel alone, being "confused", as you put it. So much of this composition concept is totally subjective. As a very good example, right here in the first couple of posts on this thread, one artist interpreted a painting as being a straight line composition, while another artist interpreted the exact same subject as being a curve. What does that tell you about the composition? Not much. Obviously, they can't both be right--or can they? Such is the subjectivity of "composition". It tells me that I would be just as correct in interpreting the composition as a curve as a straight line--and so would you. The real question is "Does the painting look good?" What's the difference whether it's a straight line or a curve?

It seems in composition that nearly anything goes, and the minute one of us thinks he/she has the "rule" figured out, someone else will come along and violate that very rule, and get applauded for it.

I am often amused when I see articles in which some composition enthusiast has drawn lines, circles, diagonals, X's, showing how the eye "moves" around the painting, and then marvels at the artist's genius at having been so clever as to have arranged the painting thusly. Well, I believe in some of that explanation, but not all of it. Does a viewer of such a painting actually believe that the master artist who produced such a work of art sat down and drew all these lines, circles, curves, diagonals, X's etc. and then commenced placing his subject within all these geometric limitations? I say baloney! Except for adhering to a few "rules", such as selecting and placing a center of interest with the proper attention being paid to perspective, I'd be willing to bet they just sat down and painted things where they felt they ought to be. If some of the old masters could speak to us right now, they'd probably be laughing their heads off at the geometric dissecting, post mortems, and interpreting to which we subject their paintings. I'll bet most of them would simply say, "Heck, I was just trying to make a pleasing picture." But, I am also aware that some present day artists feel that the old masters did exactly that!

Actually, there really are a few "rules" of composition, but it seems one must dig them out, as it is only the very complicated ones which get the most press. As a result, many beginners seldom get the "main" ones.

Have a center of interest (but sometimes two centers of interest is ok.)

Place that center of interest in about 1/3 of the distance from canvas edge.

Place the horizon about 1/3 from either the top or the bottom of the canvas.

Any subject of nature (like trees, clouds, etc) should be an odd number, not even.

All four corners should be painted slightly darker than the rest of the work.

The center of interest should have "more" of everyting--more detail, more intense color, more contrast, more brightness.

Things running on a diagonal are generally considered "good".

"Eye-stoppers" are generally considered good technique. These are items such as dark trees, bushes, etc. which are placed near the left and right edges of the canvas to "stop" the eye from running off the canvas.

Have objects overlap other objects, in order to show distance.

Make natural things such as bushes and trees irregular, not symmetrical.

Now, these "rules" seem quite simple to me, and I follow them in nearly every painting I do. I'm not a master of composition by any means, and I'm sure some of you more accomplished artists are going to rip me apart for my opinions, here. But my main object was to convey to Bev that she's definitely not alone in her confusion, and that even quite accomplished artists disagree on some of the "why's" and "wherefore's" of this subjective thing known as "composition".

Bill:D

[BevL]

Thanks so much Bill for such a thought provoking response.

I think a lot of my own confusion comes not from so many 'rules', but from so many opinions. Not necessarily for my own work, but I read the comments on other work all through this site, and quite often notice mention of wrongs in composition. For instance, some might look at Paul Browns' painting and say things such as 'the stalks on the center onion lead my eye out", or , 'the stalks cut the painting in half', or 'there should be more room at the top, shorten those green stalks' etc etc. So for those of us who are just starting out, it becomes terribly confusing. Before this thread, I had never heard of a straight line composition in anything I've read. But when posting my other painting of a still life with this type of compostion, that was what was zeroed in on as a fault for the most part.. the items in a straight line. Paul Browns' example shows it can indeed be a most pleasing composition, and we can see through Jackies explanation, why it works so well.

On another note.. about artists actually using lines and placing subjects, etc, here's an interesting link on Vermeers'"Woman Holding a Balance'. Make sure to follow the red arrows under the photo. :)

http://www.nga.gov/feature/vermeer/composition1.html

Bev

[jackiesimmonds]

[
I am often amused when I see articles in which some composition enthusiast has drawn lines, circles, diagonals, X's, showing how the eye "moves" around the painting, and then marvels at the artist's genius at having been so clever as to have arranged the painting thusly. Well, I believe in some of that explanation, but not all of it. Does a viewer of such a painting actually believe that the master artist who produced such a work of art sat down and drew all these lines, circles, curves, diagonals, X's etc. and then commenced placing his subject within all these geometric limitations? I say baloney! Except for adhering to a few "rules", such as selecting and placing a center of interest with the proper attention being paid to perspective, I'd be willing to bet they just sat down and painted things where they felt they ought to be. If some of the old masters could speak to us right now, they'd probably be laughing their heads off at the geometric dissecting, post mortems, and interpreting to which we subject their paintings. I'll bet most of them would simply say, "Heck, I was just trying to make a pleasing picture." But, I am also aware that some present day artists feel that the old masters did exactly that!
[/B]

Bill - I have written several books on pastel painting, and before tackling the chapters on composition, I reckoned I ought to do my background research - so I did. And to my amazement, I found that there is NO QUESTION in my mind, now, having seen and read a great deal on the subject, that many an old master most certainly DID understand composition "rules", and worked with them to achieve an underlying strength to their work which clould not, in my opinion have been achieved in any other way. I remember one image, a Turner painting, and it was absolutely fascinating to see how he had orchestrated his scene to conform to many of the golden rules..........and boy, did it work. It was not at all apparent at first glance, but I saw, through the eyes of the extremely intelligent author, a Royal Academician, how Turner managed to direct the viewers eye EXACTLY where he wanted it to go; how curving forms drew our eye from spot to spot in the picture, and how the important elements were pefectly placed. I think you completely underestimate the capabilities of the great masters, I think your "baloney"comment is an insult to their intelligence and could not disagree with you more (which is my perogative.) I do not think they decided upon a composition by placing lines and dashes down first, and then basing their compositon around those lines and dashes, as you suggest - they were much more structured than that. They would have prepared sketches in advance of doing a painting, and would have decided upon the best form of composition by adjusting their sketches with composition in mind. They were thorough, and careful, well-educated and immensely talented. There is no question in my mind that Degas was absolutely aware of the strength of underlying geometry in his ballet pictures, for instance - those marvellous angled arms, which echo the angles of the skirts, are no accident. They are, quite simply GOOD DESIGN.

There is too much "oh just paint what you like" around today and not enough respect for the amazing abilities and knowledge of the painters of the past, who, far from being amused by our attempts to analyse, would probably be horrified by our lack of education, and lack-lustre compositions.

My reading has been extensive. I believe that some authors over-analyse, but there are many who do not, and who are capable of extracting the main elements of composition and simplifying them and explaining them well.

Incidentally, I do not know where you do your research and get your information, but I have not once, in all my reading, ever read that one should make all four corners of the picture slightly darker than the rest, and having looked this afternoon through many of my books,and examined many a master painting, including those of Sergent, Cezanne, Degas, Monet and others, I can safely say that this comment is completely inaccurate, and making your corners darker is NOT one of the main rules of composition. THAT is baloney.

And your comment..."things running on a diagonal are generally considered "good". ???????????? What is that all about? I don't believe that is a helpful, or accurate comment at all.

I really believe that if an artist is to rise above the mundane in his or her work, he needs to add to his or her education and experience as much as possible. Settling for quick fixes and over-simplified "rules" without doing some in-depth research at some point, will leave that artist producing paintings which suffer from lack of substance and depth. After more than 20 years of painting, I am still learning, and will continue to do so, and will not settle for less.

(Oh boy, have I probably opened a can of worms, folks! I must be crazy. Never mind - I'm off to run my exhibition next week, so you can blast away back at me without fear of response!!)

Jackie
www.jackiesimmonds.co.uk

[jackiesimmonds]

Bev - we cross-posted so I didn't see your last post while I was writing my somehwat vitriolic response above!

Regarding what you see in these posts.........well, you must take into account that what you are seeing is a lot of people's UNINFORMED PERSONAL OPINIONS. Or, in some instances, but not many INFORMED personal opinions.

At the end of the day, you have to decide where you stand. There will always be someone out there who will tell you that you did this or that wrong. Listen, and then analyse your feelings. Do you believe they might be right? If so, they possibly are. Do you feel, on the other hand, that no, you do NOT agree after all? That's OK too - they may well be wrong.

Yes, there are certain things you can learn, which will help you to improve your compositions. Just keep on listening, and learning, but never forget to also trust your instincts too. Gradually, you will pick up things which matter, things which make sense, and things which help you to feel more confident about your instincts.

Learning is wonderful. Keep on learning, keep on analysing, keep on listening.........but try to sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to reading other people's "opinions".

Jackie

[WFMartin]

Jackie,

Actually, I would really appreciate being proven wrong. But, as yet, nobody has explained just how a critic is able to have climbed into the mind of an old master, and discovered just how his thinking evolved, and whether or not that old master went through all the geometrical gyrations in the planning of a painting as is usually touted by those who believe it.

I certainly did not want to give the impression that their techniques involved no planning or consideration of composition. I surely do believe they did lots of sketching and planning, and for the reason of establishing a good composition. I simply believe that most of the composition enthusiasts "read" too much into how these paintings were created. I'm afraid that I'VE opened the can of worrms, as I know it's not popular to scoff at all the devotees and line-drawers and disectors of intricate composition. My entire point was to bring to Bev the realization that there are only a scant few "rules" of composition which should be observed, and from there on a great deal is strictly OPINION!

I'd warrant a guess that if you gave the same great, but intricate, painting to 5 different composition experts, and asked them to draw on an overlay the marks representing the main strengths of the painting, compositionally, that you'd get 5 different drawings. That does not make for good understanding regarding the rules of composition. Again, that represents opinions, not rules. And, therefore, I'd have to say that one ciritic's opinions may not be any more or less credible than any other critic's opinion.

You may not agree with some of the suggestion which I have offered, but then I respectfully ask you to come up with some which ARE correct. That's really all Bev was asking for. Shoot me down. I really don't mind. I would be happy to learn from you (and I hope I do), but offer something which Bev and I can learn from. For example, if that Turner piece does what you have suggested, it must be worthy of being used as a prime example of some "rule" that is understandable, learnable, and teachable. Please teach us all just what that rule is.

I sort of expected to get many artists' dander up on this one, but it's how I feel, and the only thing that many of us are asking is to please let us know a few "rules" which we can use on, let's say, 90% of our paintings to make our compositions more pleasing. I, for one, would really welcome the information, and will be quite willing to change my mind, should I come across some really positive information to the contrary.

Jackie, you are OK, in my book! Teach me, I ask of you.

Bev, you have posted a really super link regarding Vermeer!

Bill:)

[jackiesimmonds]

Well, Bill, you are a brick to take my post so well, I didn't expect y0u would and I think it is great that you did.

In fact, I tried, in my previous post explaining some of the points about the onions composition, to put forward a few of the main elements of composition, as I saw them in terms of that composition ...........Echoing shapes, Unity, and Variety with Unity. I believe these to be important, useful elements to learn about, and I hope my explanations are fairly clear there.

To be perfectly honest, it would take ages to go into a whole dissertation about composition, there is too much to it. I did, in my book Pastels Workshop,(available from me if you wish!!!) go into composition in some depth, there is a whole chapter devoted to it, and is the best I can do, frankly.

Otherwise, I would direct you to a couple of good books, if they are still in print. One is a paperback called COMPOSITION IN PAINTING AND DRAWING by Jose M. Parramon. It is a smallish paperback, but has some sound information in it.

I also learned a great deal from DESIGN BASICS by David A Lauer.. The chapters in his books cover these main elements, in a very understandable form:
1. UNITY
2. FOCAL POINT
3. BALANCE
4 SCALE/PROPORTION
5. ILLUSION OF SPACE
6. ILLUSION OF MOTION
7. RHYTHM
8. LINE
9. SHAPE/FORM
10. TEXTURE
11. COLOUR.

The chapter on Unity covers also Unity with Variety, and was the most helpful chapter I have read anywhere.

If you could find an old copy of this book, I highly recommend it.

I also recommend Angela Gair's book COLOUR LIGHT AND FORM, which has several chapters on Designing the Picture, which are clear and concise.

I am a bit short of time today but when I have a moment, I may photocopy the drawings of the Turner, which are based on Ruskin's analysis of the Turner pic, in Bernard Dunstan's excellent book COMPOSING YOUR PAINTINGS, probably long out of print.
I could scan the images now, but you realy need the text to go with it.

This comment of Dunstan's, after his analysis of the Turner, may interest you, however:

"These then are some of the formal devices that the painter may use in the design of a picture. I must stress again that there's bound to be a certain artificiality about any attempt to analyze in this way. On the whole, a painter does not necesarily consciously decide, before he begins, to do this and that; decisions are more likely to come out of the subject, his responses to it, and the way that other things are happening on his canvas. I am sure that pictures design themselves far more than we think; composition happens all around us, AND WHERE A KNOWLEDGE OF THESE ASPECTS OF DESIGN CAN HELP IS THAT IT ENABLES US TO SEE AND CATCH HOLD OF POSSIBILITIES THAT WE MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN BLIND TO".

So, in effect, Dunstan is agreeing with you, but modifying that agreement with that last sentence, which agrees with me about needing the "knowledge".

I am glad we all agree.

Jackie

[WFMartin]

By the way, everyone.....This quote is off our own forum by Johannes Vloothuis regarding diagonals, for what it's worth.

11. If possible include a vertical, horizontal and diagonal movement in your painting. Only one should be predominant in length though. Diagonals are the most preferable because they never run parallel to the frame. These contour lines should not be straight rather just give the sense of direction.

I rest my case, at least on THIS item.

Bill:D

[WFMartin]

Jackie,

We really did cross-post on this. I was not trying to be a wise-guy on this last post of mine regarding diagonals, but as it is, it rather proves that I am not a complete dunce. LOL

Hey, I really want to thank you for those references and ESPECIALLY the comment at the bottom by the Turner critic. As you seem to agree, it rather suggests that, as I mentioned, much of the work by these artists simply represents their attempt at producing a well-composed painting, as opposed to some intricate, convoluted delving into the geometric hocus pocus of desired viewer eye movement.

I certainly would like to learn more about composition, and most heartily welcome your input. I will seek out some of those references to which you alluded. Thank you very much.

Do you actually believe that Turner had these many things running through his mind as he painted this? Just curious. Realize, I have not seen this painting to which you refer.

Anyway, thank you, once more.

Bill:)

[madster]

Bill, regarding your opinions regarding the classics and the old masters....

The usage of proportions and "formulas" in composition has been well documented for centuries. "Polykleitos worked according to a canon of proportions in which he formulated the principles that give rise to unity. Although Polykleitos' own treatise enunciating his canon is lost, Galen, the second century A.D. physician, interprets is as follows in his Placits Hippocratis et Platonis:
"...[beatuy consists] in the proportions, not of the elements, but of the parts, that is to say, of finger to finger, and of all the fingers to the palm and the wrist, and of these to the forearm...and of all the other parts to each other, as they are set forth in the Canon of Polycleitos."

Gardner's Art Through the Ages, seventh edition.

Such formulas for composition regarding planes, positioning, and perspective have been extensively documented and published. Michaelangelo's man within the proportionate circle is a classic example. Where do you think the concept of the "golden mean" arose? From a bunch of art-dissecting enthusiasts? Me thinks not. Many of the old Masters studied for years as apprentices to learn the "rules" of art, and only after mastering those, were many of them able to then break the rules, so to speak and create their own distinctive works. Please note the key word "YEARS." You can't sum up composition in a few basic rules to live by. To be truly good at it, even with an exceptional amount of innate talent, literally takes years. Years of practice, years of study, years of experience. It's never too late to start, and you never stop learning, but to presume that it's all "baloney," and that the great Masters would laugh at the dissection and contemplation of created works is quite far from the truth, as many of them spent years doing just that, and it was documented as to who their teachers were, how long they apprenticed, etc.

The "paint it if it feels good" mentality works to some extent, but the vast majority of truly good works still tend to follow long and widely accepted tenets of composition, that were, and still are being taught today.

[BevL]

Following this with great interest. I do believe the masters did use precise, painstaking methods for composition and design, the Vermeer link being one example. I can't claim credit for that link, btw. It was one that was shared with me by a friend who was giving me some pointers and I found this, and some of the other links, fascinating.

To realize that it takes years to really understand great composition is a little daunting. No, its a lot daunting. Gosh, I hope I dont have to face the next 10 years producing compositional duds before it starts to click in. lol

Bev

[WFMartin]

Madster,

The problem that I see with "studying and practicing" composition is very similar to the problems that arise with "studying and practicing" proper oil paint application. If you read a book (as I once did) by an alla prima artist and follow it up with a book (as I then did) by an artist who favors the layered approach, you'd think you were talking about two different kinds of art. Where one tells you NEVER to do something, the other tells you to ALWAYS do the same thing. The former will tell you to lay a stroke of paint down as if it were going to be your last opportunity, whereas the latter will tell you to gradually build up the paint with application upon application, until the final image gradually appears. That's an example of where "studying" falls short.

Practice is a good thing, also,but only if one begins by practicing the correct things and in the correct way. Taking a hundred stabs at futile attempts of composition is not practice, its random firing at a moving target.

I guess I'll still contend that there are as many ways to plan a composition as there are artists describing how to plan it. In my opinion, the only ones which ring true, so to speak, are the ones which involve those rules which are understandable, and can be taught, and probably those that we hear about the most often, such as where to place the horizon. What's difficult about describing that rule? Nothing.

There must be some fairly solid rules covering techniques of composition that most artists are capable of understanding.

Whoa.....I didn't mean to rant, here, but this composition hocus-pocus is one of my pet peeves in art. As an ex-teacher of color, I have a difficult time understanding just why a concept such as composition can't be boiled down to some simple basics (and not a jillion, either) that can be taught to most of those capable of reading a newspaper. Color theory certainly can.

Sorry for the rant. Madster, your points about the old masters is well taken. I agree with you. They did work their butts off. But, assuming that many artists now know just what they did, I have a tough time understanding just why it can't be easily and effectively TAUGHT, just as the facts of sound, scientific, color theory can be taught, and as a result, understood by the student. And, I might add--with very few opinions included.

Please bear with me on this. I'd really like to become better at compositiion, as it is one of my weaker suits. Perhaps, if I grab one of the books that Jackie has recommended, my quest for compositiion knowledge might just be answered, huh?

Bill :)

[jackiesimmonds]

Madster - I am with you all the way.

Bill - yes, do grab one of those books, and have a good read. You will be surprised by what you find if you do. Good design/composition CAN be boiled down to simple basics.....without wanting to sound like I am blowing my own trumpet, the fact is ...I had to do so.

I boiled down the main elements of composition as follows, and I explained them simply and in a totally understandable way in the book, with diagrams, and paintings which explain the main concepts.

1. I talk about DIRECTIONS AND MOVEMENTS, and the underlying geometry of the picture. I show, with a diagram, how horizontal and vertical lines and shapes echo the sides of the rectangle and suggest an atmosphere of stability,calmness and strength.

The next diagram shows how diagonal lines and shapes suggest activity. They create a feeling of dynamic tension within an image.

The next diagram shows how curving lines and shapes can create movement and energy, or can be quietly passive, depending on the activity of the line.

2. I go on to discuss UNITY, VARIETY AND CONTRAST, using simple diagrams and paintings to explain. Why not go to the library and find the book and have a look. I write as follows: "I suggest you consider a scrapbook page. Each item on the page is meant to be studied and appreciated separately. The items may have a common theme, but unity of theme will not guarantee a harmonious pattern - there may be no visual unity. Unity in painting is often created by repetition. Colour is the simplest, most obvious element to repeat, but shapes, textures, directions and angles may also be repeated. However we need to recognise that too unified a pattern can be monotonous, and so, to prevent visual boredom, we combine unity with variety, and contrast. then our paintings will have an underlying compositonal strength and rhythm. " I explain this with three simple diagrams.

3. I talk about SHAPES, and how we need to look beyond the obvious "things" in the picture and to recognise the interlocking arrangement of flat shapes on the two-dimensional surface. I suggest ways to "see" shapes, both negative, and positive shapes, and how to create BALANCE within the image, by considering the placement of these shapes carefully - again, more little explanatory diagrams.

4. I show where to position the FOCAL POINT in a picture, and I explain why those points work.

5. I discuss COUNTERCHANGE, and how useful it can be.

6. I talk about how to use a VIEWFINDER effectively, to explore possible compositions.....

Finally, I offer a simple project with a few self-assessment questions.

I say ".....it is my belief that it is impossible to paint a good picture without taking composition into account. This building-up of the underlying structure of a painting is one of the most difficult concepts to grasp, but it will pay enormous dividends if you can manage to do so. Trying to analyse another artist's work in order to make your own discoveries about the picture-making process will develop your ability to see and sense pictorial composition".

Bev - it takes a bit of determination, but not necessarily a lot of time, to grasp the ESSENTIALS, and armed with those, you will feel so much more confident, I promise you.

Bill - this composition "hocus-pocus" that you despise so much and have a little "rant" about, CAN be simplified, and it is up to you to do it. It requires some time spent on reading and research. Yes, you may well read different things in different places, but gradually, as you read, you WILL find basic concepts coming through, and a general concensus of agreement amongst authors. I am at pains to point out in my book, a bit of basic understanding of the main, and simple, ideas I put out, will prove exceptionally helpful. You sound like an intelligent man.....well, if I can do it, and I am not a genius....then you can do it too. Go for it, mate.

Jackie

[jackiesimmonds]

Okay, you wanted to know more about the Turner I mentioned.

I will try to précis what is in the book, but this might be a bit long. Beware! Basically, this is about how Turner used the element of REPETITION in his picture (I call this “echoes”). There are no pictures with loads of complex lines, crosses and dots, Bill!!! Just a couple of simple things to study.

I quote:
“………the reptition of an element in a picture can help to give a quality of UNITY, which enables the whole of a complex design to “hang together”. Repitition is not the same as repetitiveness, and so the echoing of one shape by another, or one rhythmic movement by another, need not produce any sense of monotony….our eyes are always pleased by a repeated form or group of forms which is a bit different each time, such as the irregular arches in an old bridge.

Shapes, or groups of shapes (like those onions, Bev!) may be echoed or rhymed in different parts of the picture in so subtle a fashion that at first, one can be unaware of any connection. Ruskin comments that this type of repetition gives a sense of calmness and repose, and he makes a masterly analysis of a painting by Turner in which he finds a surprising number of links, or echoes of this kind. Turner was very fond of this device of “rhyming” and used it with the greatest virtuosity and expressiveness.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/09-May-2003/1805-TURNER1.jpg
The tower on one side of the bridge is the leading feature, or focus, of the design. It is repeated by a smaller, lower tower on th left, thus making a pair. This pair is then repeated all over the picture; the spires of the town on the right are all arranged in couples, the large boat has its partner behind it; and that one in its turn is divided into two. Each of these two smaller boats has two figures in it, and so on. Even the great mass of the cliff with the castle on it has almost its facsimile in the bank on which the girl is sitting.

There are some other points about this picture :
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/09-May-2003/1805-turner2.jpg

The left-hand side of th4e design, when enlarged, shows even more clearly that a subtle system of related and rhyming curves operates throughout the picture. The bridge itself makes a long, slight curve, which is echoed in reverse by the similar shapes of the boats. From the old rudder and the two pieces of timber in the left foreground, two long curving “directions” are initiated, which both reach, eventually, the focus point of the top of the tower, and the other boats to the right also point towards it, as can be seen from the dotted lines.

Finally, a good example of the use of a repeating series of almost similar shapes (those onions again) can be found in the arches of the bridge. There is no monotony about this long line of arches because of the slight, but important, variations in size and form that can be seen.”

I hope you found this as enlightening as I did. Turner probably used what was there, in the scene……….but he somehow made “more” of what was there, by using his knowledge and understanding of the elements of good design. If he worked on the spot, he probably gradually became aware, as he worked, of these repeating elements, and used them to great effect. If he worked from memory, as he often did, then I have no doubt he manipulated the positions of the boats, and the numbers of people within them.

I would like to finish with the following:

"It is essential to be aware of principles, and to know something of the possibilities, in order to sharpen our perceptions. This, really, is what matters. Composition is all around us. What we need to do is learn to look, with an open mind, and SOME UNDERSTANDING OF THE POSSIBILITIES. There is then no need to get too involved with rules and formulae.

However, it is only on a basis of knowledge that we can become free to compose naturally. The person who has never seriously looked at composition and paintings, will inevitably be very limited in the way he composes how own painting. "A little knowledge" means that we will often imitate other artists' way of composing, but there is no harm in this - imitation is an essential part of th learning process."

Phew! If you got thro this lot, you deserve a medal. I must go and get dressed now!!!!

Jackie

[WFMartin]

Jackie,

You have truly gone out of your way to help me in understanding this "composition thing" better. I certainly do appreciate your efforts, here, and it really has not fallen on deaf ears. I am fascinated by that Turner diagram you included. Actually, I believe I've seen a repro of that painting somewhere. I find it extremely interesting.

So, if I were in the market for purchasing a really good book on composition, whose would you deem the best? Yours, of course. LOL But, you seem to be an honest person, and perhaps you'd actually want to recommend something else as a "first book" for me. I have dozens of how-to art books, but none of them are really concentrated on composition, except for some of this diagrammatic, geometric approach that I have found so annoying. The only reason I find this approach annoying, is that I really feel that this approach is so subjective. Perhaps a really good book of composition rules will iron that all out for me.

Thank you, once again for such diligence in sticking with me on this. You must have a "teacher instinct", too. Your effort on this has been enormous! To me, that means you really believe in what you're saying, and, as a result, I'd like to be brought around to believing it, too.

Bill :)

[jackiesimmonds]

thanks for those nice comments.

No, I would not recommend my book unless you were a pastellist wanting info about working with pastels. My chapter is interesting and certainly boils things down dramatically...but it is only a chapter.

Any of the books I mentioned before would be good, if you can find them. Try a search on Google, even if they are out of print, you may be able to track one down somewhere. There are good bits in all of the ones I mentioned. The Angela Gair one is not specifically about composition tho, so perhaps ignore that one - or see if you can find it in a library, she is a brilliant author and also manages to simplify things in such a clear way.

Good luck
Jackie

[arlene]

There is too much "oh just paint what you like" around today and not enough respect for the amazing abilities and knowledge of the painters of the past, who, far from being amused by our attempts to analyse, would probably be horrified by our lack of education, and lack-lustre compositions.



here here!!! I couldn't agree with you more.

And unfortunately the schools here don't necessarily teach it.

[arlene]

Originally posted by BevL
To realize that it takes years to really understand great composition is a little daunting. No, its a lot daunting. Gosh, I hope I dont have to face the next 10 years producing compositional duds before it starts to click in. lol

Bev

I'm still learning and hope to continue to learn till the day I die.

[henrik]

Very good info jackie!

About the books, the Parramon is out of print - amazon has used copies on sale though. Dunstan and Lauer are not available at Amazon (at least). I have a copy of "COMPOSITION IN ART" by Henry Rankin Poore that I recently bought at Amazon. I think it is good - its a paperback, B/W illustrations, about 96 pp, 148 illustrations, (9 i in color), by Dover book - and it is about 9$.

[BevL]

Jackie, I did a search and did find that I can get Lauer's book. I couldnt come up with the others through the Chapters stores, but will check my library (although I doubt they will have it.. they never have any art books I look for!)

The Lauer book is $82 Canadian. Ouch. lol

[jackiesimmonds]

Bev - have another look - I found a paperback version of the Lauer, so clearly it did go out in paperback, which should be cheaper than a hardback.

I also have that Poore book, Composition in Art, but did not recommend it as I felt it was not as good as the others I recommended. However, on looking at it again, perhaps I was a bit unfair. Ijust did not respond to it as well, at the time. Feel it is lacking in that it doesn't go into the question of Unity, and variety with unity, which I personally feel is most important.

EDIT: I did a check too, and the first page which popped up, having put "out of print books" into a Google search, was www.abebooks.com, and theyhave 14 of the Lauer book, including a couple of paperbacks at around $15/$16 US !!!!!!

They also had hardback versions of COMPOSING YOUR PAINTINGS by Bernard Dunstan. They were pricey, and also I do not know if they were exactly the same as I have, which is a pocket how-to-do-it from Studio Vista, which is not what they were offering. However, because I love that little book so much, and really like what Dunstan has to say, I might well invest in one of the big paperbacks, so if you guys are going to want to buy, race you there!!

Never say die, folks.

Jackie

[henrik]

I agree with you Jackie; Poor's bock does not go into Unity and Varity. The area theat he covers are ok though.

[BevL]

The Lauers' book I found WAS the paperback! lol

I almost choked at the cost. But hey, this is Canada after all!

But I have to tell you.. last evening I went to a second hand shop to look for still life items... and my husband came up to me carrying two books he found... "Rembrandt, his life, his paintings' by Gary Schwartz, and 'The History and Techniques of the Great Masters', by Andrew Morrall. The Rembrandt book is a large hardcover, and when I did a check for it on Amazon, it came up at the price of $93US for a used fair condition copy, and $119US for a good condition used copy! Mine is excellent condition! That would make it worth $165.73 Canadian! Wonder what it would be new? :D


Bev

[jackiesimmonds]

Bev - confused here - surely the website I found is TONS better than your result of Canadian $82 for the softback? I make it Canadian $20 from Abebooks. Whoever you found was ripping you off with a vengeance if I can find it for $20 canadian. Even if you have to pay a bit of postage, it still, surely, would be worth the money to get it from good old Abe!!!

Jackie

[BevL]

I just double checked the Chapters online site. Chapters is a major bookstore chain here, similar to Borders in the US. Indeed, the paperback is $81.95. This is the 2000 edition. There is also a 1994 edition for $71.95. Looks like the best idea would be to order from Abe. Canada is horrible for book prices! All the books I own, which is quite a few now, have never cost me less than $45 each. No wonder my husband winces each time I ask if we can go to Chapters. lol
Bev

[jackiesimmonds]

Sounds like you need to stop going to Chapters and start shopping online. Poor hubby. (And I mean POOR!)
Good luck!

Jackie:)

[WFMartin]

Well, in my never-ending quest for the truth about the "rules" of composition, we seem to have come up with the following, so far:

I first said to Bev: Things running on a diagonal are generally considered "good".

Then, Jackie said to me: And your comment..."things running on a diagonal are generally considered "good". ???????????? What is that all about? I don't believe that is a helpful, or accurate comment at all.

Then I quoted an artist from our own forum, who has an article on composition, and I said: By the way, everyone.....This quote is off our own forum by Johannes Vloothuis regarding diagonals, for what it's worth.

11. If possible include a vertical, horizontal and diagonal movement in your painting. Only one should be predominant in length though. Diagonals are the most preferable because they never run parallel to the frame. These contour lines should not be straight rather just give the sense of direction.

Then Jackie said, as she quotes a line from her own book: The next diagram shows how diagonal lines and shapes suggest activity. They create a feeling of dynamic tension within an image.

Now, everyone, I'm not at all trying to be funny here, but I'd like to get some opinions on just what conclusions you'd imagine that a complete novice to the techniques of composition would be likely to arrive at regarding whether he/she should consider the use of diagonals within a composition. That is....are diagonals a good technique to employ, or not?

Let's tally it up: 1) I originally said that diagonals were "good".
2) Vloothuis said diagonals were "good".
3)Jackie gave me the impression they were "bad."
4)Jackie indicated, from her own book, that diagonals were "good," or at least, useful.

I'm not gonna' really keep score, here, but it surely helps to support my point that so very much of this idea of "composition" is quite subjective, and, in fact, may actually vary within an artist's own thinking from day to day, or subject to subject. Does that not seem to be true?

What "rule" of composition can we agree on regarding the use of diagonals in a composition? Beats me! I guess it's just opinions, after all. Whose opinions are more likely to be correct? I don't know, but probably those artists who are selling more of their paintings, and that CERTAINLY ISN'T ME. LOL

Jackie, I'm going about searching out a couple of those books you recommended. I may just check one or two out of the library. Many thanks.

Bill:D

[jackiesimmonds]

ok, here we have a clear example of someone misinterpreting something which has been said.........or, perhaps, in YOUR defense, something which has not been said well enough.

When I said "what kind of comment is that?" regarding your comment about diagonals in a painting, and I went on to say that I did not feel the comment was helpful or accurate, this is what I meant.

To make a statement like "diagonals are good" is basically inadequate. "Diagonals are good" would not be at all HLEPFUL to anyone, unless it is explained WHY diagonals are good and how to use them to best effect.

"Diagonals are good" is NOT ACCURATE to someone who is trying to create a quiet, simple composition, without too much in the way of dynamic tension. Someone who wants to create, say, a landscape or still life composition, where the atmosphere and emphasis will be one of a feeling of stillness and calm.

If I gave the impression that diagonals are BAD, I apologise - that was never my intention, and I think it is all down to semantics, actually. I most certainly did not use the word BAD, did I? So really, one needs to be awfully careful about one's choice of words when interpreting something someone else has said.

However, this is life. We all do it. It is an inevitable part of communication. I try to do my best to demistify and be clear when I communicate, but lengthy exlanations of my thought processes are impossible in a forum such as this. I just have to hope that the main gist of what I say is not misinterpreted like this.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that there are some basic concepts with regard to composition which CAN, and should, be studied. This is not the place to go into them at length. That is why I suggested the books that I suggested.

I hope that by explaining my initial comments, which should have been enlarged upon, I have made the position clear on this point of diagonal movements at least!!! I do not think there is any disagreement between Johannes' opinion and mine - it is all about HOW one imparts information, and I simply took issue with your statement as one which was misleading because it needed expansion.

I hope all THIS is clear enough!!

Jackie

Jackie

[jackiesimmonds]

came back to say something else, re-read the above post, and realised that my first paragraph could be misinterpreted!!!!!!! Too late to edit so please read it as: ....."something which has not been said well enough - by me."

See what I mean about semantics?

Anyway, the reason I came back, was to say that as of this evening, I will be away from my desk for a week, so if you do come back at me, you won't get a reply. I will be busy in Central London, running my own exhibition, and I don't have a laptop so will have to manage with my daily fix of WC for a bit.

Jackie

[WFMartin]

Jackie,

No, I wasn't trying to tear you apart on this one. Just pointing out how really confusing some of points of composition are. And, especially to those who are entirely new to this concept.

Have a good time at the exhibition you'll be running. I'm going to pick up a book or two from the library from those you mentioned.

Cheers to you!

Bill:)

[BevL]

Bill, in my limited time I have been searching for examples or articles online about diagonal compositions. I would like to find some examples but havent had much luck yet. I did, however, find out that Vermeers' "Girl with the Pearl Earring' is a diagonal composition. And if I understood correctly, a lot of Baroque paintings use diagonal compositions. Dont take my word on that, though, because it was a very long article and I was just glancing over it.

Jackie, if you are still around, good luck with your show!! :)

Bev

[belladonna]

Rules of composition and intuition… I intuitively lay out my composition. Then I take a long look at it. Upside down, in the mirror, from far away and from close up. Then I think on how to make it better. I consider were the horizon should be. I ask myself if I want to create tension or not. Sometimes I do break the “rules” because I want the painting to be cut in half for tension. Sometimes I do not want that kind of tension in the work. I consider the shapes, including the negative shapes, and I try to find ways of adjusting it to make it more pleasing to the eye. Perhaps I want to echo the shapes, or perhaps I will set one thing apart… to be a focal point or just to be looked closer at. Perhaps diagonals or horizontals to direct the eye, perhaps curves, or a strait line, or both in the same painting. I consider the angle of the shadows and the light. I consider all the ways to direct eye movement where I want it to go. I consider it my job to direct the eye of people who look at the painting, so that they can see what I saw when the subject moved me to paint it. I want them to follow the bend of a stem or a brighter light or color to the focal point. I think about all this because I have so little time to invest and so each painting becomes very precious to me. I also have to keep in mind what it was that made me want to invest my time. I ask myself was it the mood, the light, the softness, the stillness or movement etc. This is the main reason for the painting in the first place. I don’t want to worry about the rules so much that I loose the inspiration to paint the subject, but I do try to paint the subject to it’s fullest potential. To give it a chance to shine and stand firmly on it’s own.

I really like planning out a new painting. Shifting things around, including the light, to get all that I can squeeze out of it. I do spend time to think of the math and the physiology behind it all. Do I place the pitcher for a right handed or left handed person? Do I make the landscape that ‘perfect place’ to set up a camp, or foreboding? I become the orchestra leader, the director of the play. Intuition is a good thing. Most artist do have it and use it weather they know it or not. You can trust your instincts, but you can also examine them to see why you found it a pleasing composition in the first place, and you can adjust it to make it even more so. Make it fun and rewarding.

It's also a good thing to closely examine paintings with comps. that you find pleasing. You can learn a lot about yourself that way. Not every comp. will work for every person. Some are universal, but there will always be exceptions. Experiment. Find the 'rules' that were meant for you.
;)

[WFMartin]

belladonna,

I think you have made some very practical statements. Seems to me that you are quite correct in your approach to planning a painting, and I will certainly agree with you about the way you do it. In fact, I think that many of us would do well to adopt that same procedure, or nearly that same procedure when beginning any painting. And, as you point out, finding the "rules that were meant for you", seems like a very good suggestion, as far as I'm concerned.


Bill:)

[BevL]

Thanks so much for your post, Bella. You've explained in a way that makes it easy to understand. Obviously the time spent planning will pay off in the end. :)

Bev