In a nutshell

[Sandi]

this is basically the only composition theories I know. I sure would like to learn more of them and learn these ones better. Help!

L shape
S curve
8 shape
cluster
triangle
Strata
circles
teeter totter/steelyard balance
Grid (I think is the Golden Mean(ie)(s)
Cruciform

Larry, Bruin, Rod, Carol, Everyone, can you give us good examples of each, or clarify which one your particular painting used each time you submit, so we can embed them in our minds and hearts. Thanks in advance. http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

[bruin70]

sandi,,,i don't follow these forms. composition means nothing if your values aren't well distributed.....{M}



------------------
"it's alright to be judgmental,,,,,,,,if you have taste"...MILT

[Phyllis Rennie]

Originally posted by bruin70:
sandi,,,i don't follow these forms. composition means nothing if your values aren't well distributed.....{M}



How do you decide where to distribute your values?

[dhenton]

one of the few ideas I've seen work well is a triangle or interlocking set of triangles to move the eye around the canvas.

------------------
"Art is anything you can get away with." -- Marshall McLuhan

[LarrySeiler]

I personally don't use such theories/rules Sandi...but, the teeter totter as a mediphor for balance. I work for assymmetrical balance as a personal rule.

The triangle is a traditional format for creating portraiture.

Some might use the "S" in foreshortening say a river or stream.

By thinking in terms of assymetrical balance, and understanding the need to subordinate and have a hierachal priority of what I want the viewer to look at I naturally work these things out. I would say artists that use some rules as these risk creating "cliches." If you are not sure what I mean by that, perhaps we need to enter into a conversation of such.

We understand rules for the purposes of our successful manipulation, but we want to avoid anything that becomes an oversimplified formula and comes off "trite."

These formulas appear to me as somewhat an "abbreviation" of why an image tends to work for the viewer. Useful, I suppose, but not for me anyway.

Larry

[Sandi]

I agree, Bruin. Without a solid value system going on, the painting will fail, even in abstracts, BUT, ... if you have a solid composition, the painting is salvageable, workable, learnable, fixable.
On the other hand, if all your values are correct, but your composition suffers, then it's ....oh wait, one can crop to suit.
So, either way, it's fixable, which is why I asked about the rules... Like Phyllis asks, how would I know where to crop, or adjust a value, if I don't know a variety of rules to base my decisions on.?
If I only know one or two rules, then ALL my paintings will be cropped the same, look the same, and I would just die of boredom. lol
I'd be an S factory, like Larry said.
I think Value is an important composition rule as well, for depth of space.

Value {{M}}
Triangle, repetition, unity. (DH)
Asymetrical (L)

Is the Grid the "T" that Cheryl spoke of? I bet it is!

[Phyllis Rennie]

Sandi, You are SO much better with words than I am!!! I really hope you get some good answers here. I just put things where I think they will look good--ya know, instinctive composing--then I adjust values & colors to draw more attention to an area or loose some of the attention. Don't know if it's a right or wrong way to do it--wouldn't mind if someone told me. Phyl

[iyoung]

Originally posted by Sandi:
Without a solid value system going on, the painting will fail, even in abstracts, ...
On the other hand, if all your values are correct, but your composition suffers

Maybe you're talking about two different things at the same time? Your composition usually is designed in value; your representational objects are defined by your values, too. I don't think your values can be correct overall in a painting's design and your composition suffer.

Talking in terms of rules like those listed makes it difficult to understand the aim of your composition. Most of the kind of paintings you are talking about are based on an informal composition with a focal point. With an informal composition your value distribution will usually do much of the work of the design - chroma does some and sometimes all, but that's usually a translation from value anyway - ex. making something stand out through purity of color against gray or through pure hue against grayed complement is similar to making something stand out as light against dark. Leading the eye through color gradation is similar to leading the eye through value gradation, etc.
Most rules of composition, unless you're following a school, have to do with how people's vision works in translating images to understanding. We try to interpret things in a useful way - looking to see what it is, where it is, and what it's about to do or is doing' (ex. if it's falling out of the rectangle, our attention will go with it.) This applies to the rectangle of your painting as a whole regardless of the actual objects you're representing. The 'what it's doing or about to do' part is an important part of the composition. We're always looking for the effect of gravity. You want to control this. You want to lead the eye around; you want to define the rhythm (think of music); you want to explain how gravity is effecting things. That's why balance is important and that's also why most people can eyeball this pretty well. If you want things to be sliding down a diagonal, for ex., you want them to be landing comfortably within your painting or leading to your focal point or continuing around elsewhere within the painting. Whatever, you want it to be as you choose, not happenstance. This is where all those triangles and s's come into play - but it's easier, I think, to consider the reason for them, rather than just think "triangle", because that way you can go faster or slower, and you also won't forget to keep the action within the painting.

There are lots of 'rules' that are understandable based upon our vision but this is getting way too long so I'll stop.

Here's great proof that what you think you see is based on your brain's interpretation and not what's there: http://www.scholastic.com/ispy/books/optical.htm
Notice when you turn it upside down, too, it looks like it's about to slide down out of the photograph.
Is the Grid the "T" that Cheryl spoke of? I bet it is!
A grid is usually a formal composition based upon repetition (a pattern). It doesn't need a focal point.

Ilene



[This message has been edited by iyoung (edited September 01, 2000).]

[bruin70]

well,,,there's no easy road. but bad values can kill ANY composition. because values are what make a realistic painting discernable. "grouping" your values is the simplest way i can describe good relationships. as an example. you have 32 black squares, and 32 red squares on a square canvas. well grouped,,,they can create a pleasing art piece, shapes, depth, tension. line them up and you get a checkerboard......{M}




------------------
"it's alright to be judgmental,,,,,,,,if you have taste"...MILT

[Sandi]

Aww, {{Phyllis}}. Great minds think alike. http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif
I plan my horizon line, but that's about it. The rest is basically intuition... but my intuition is also laced with learning,.. and like you, I would really love to add more spunk to my intuition.
We'll learn em.
I would love to PLAN a painting from scratch, improve a painting while in the making, and KNOW why it does or doesn't work when finished.
I KNOW... but yet I Don't know. I have to http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif at myself way too often. I'm giving me a headache & a complex!! http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

Fulcrums, S's, Formal, etc.. are pretty easy to figure out and adjust, most of the time.
It's the RULE busters that give me a headache! Why oh why, did the canvas divided in the middle WIN the best of show?? To me it was incredibly boring... WHAT am I missing??
I want to learn how to PUSH my intuition, know which canvas's are salvagable.

I understand the Mass values, the volume values, the directional values, the temperature values, and the focus values. BUT, I don't always "get it" when what shouldn't work does, and when what should doesn't. I just usually accept my "feelings" on it. But, then BAM, sometimes, (not often, hehe), my "feelings" are way off base. This is good. This tells me I need to learn more.
Hence, my post.
Thank you everybody for your input on this.

Hmmm, how about a tutorial, on WHY it works when it shouldn't, and why it doesn't when it should. http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif <--- my best bribary smile.






[This message has been edited by Sandi (edited September 04, 2000).]

[Phyllis Rennie]

Yep, I know that feeling, Sandi. I posted a painting in the Crit forum a couple of months ago with tulips and lilacs very far to the left and high in the painting. I've since finished it and everyone who has seen it has raved about it. But in my mind it breaks the rules compositionally and I can see that it works but haven't a clue why. I feel like if I could figure out why, then I could try to accomplish the same emotional impact in a different painting. But, since I can't figure it out.................

[henrik]

For me, working on a painting is a thought process alternating between intuition/feeling and theory. I.e. I draw or paint first then observe. Then think - why does it work or not work?
Understanding theory helps observation (knowing what to look for), and analysis (what it is you have done at a higher level of abstraction). One example - if you know that interlocking triangles is a theory of composition - then you can look for triangles, then you can reason about your work in triangluar terms - should there be more/less triangular composition, should those components be more/less obvious, what if I contrast the triangular with a square or round composition element. What would that element be?

Then back to intuition again.

The risk of "overusing theory" is a stiff and mechanical result IMO.

[Sandi]

I remember that one Phyllis! You're right, it shouldn't have worked, but it DID. I think because of the fulcrum balance. How that lovely shadow on the wall balanced the large vessel on the other side, on the table. Plus your harmonious colors seemed to pull the whole together/unite. Plus, the directional height of the mass helped to connect it as well. It is/was an exciting piece. I agree, it would be fun & educational to KNOW exactly why. Daring. Very daring piece.

[Sandi]

Then back to intuition again.

The risk of "overusing theory" is a stiff and mechanical result IMO.

Henrik, we work a LOT alike. Except you seem to UNDERSTAND the theories deeper. I understand, but to a limited degree. Then I go and confuse myself.
I risk "underusing theory" more than overusing at this point.
I understand the need for unity, for repeated shapes, and that those shapes need to VARY in size, value and whatever. But, I don't yet understand when/how I've OVER done it, or yet underdone it, let alone figure out what it needs. I'll just know it's "off". Which means I would have a real tuff time being DARING. I wanna be daring dangitall, without going too far and ruining it so often....er, at all. http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif
Guess it's just a matter of time.

I AM on the right track, cuz we seem to "work" about the same. I sure will be glad when I understand the theories as deeply as you and others do.

[henrik]

I have read a lot of books but have only been able to apply theory in the few and far between occations when I have time and opportunity to paint. Wetcanvas has been great - I have learned a lot by looking at other peoples work and trying to help. This has given me lots of opportunity to practice on work where I am not emotionally attached.

A great learning experience!

[Phyllis Rennie]

Originally posted by henrik:
Wetcanvas has been great - I have learned a lot by looking at other peoples work and trying to help.

A great learning experience!




I find that true also--seems that the best way for me to REALLY learn something is to try to teach it to someone else.