Composition - examples of note

[Mike McCarty]

Carol,

At least you've figured out whats important. It's a difficult subject to tackle, because just when you think you've got a handle on a set rules someone comes along and breaks them with a resounding success. Maybe we could get something started here and between the bunch of us learn something new. I started this not to tell what I know (which was built on a solid foundation of ignorance) but to shake loose what others may teach me. It's a difficult and important subject.

Claudemir,

Thanks for those examples. It seems to me that when you bring many other elements (shapes) into the scene it then looses the element of being a two person composition. Each person being just one more shape within the overall composition. It's when things tighten up that it gets more challenging.

Allan,

I had the same feeling about our left side of the painting needing to be wider, but then I look at the position of the heads and bodies in relation to the canvas and I begin to wonder. I thought that the bowl was the weakest part of the composition, then I thought that maybe he thought he had to include it to complete the narrative of the bubbles. I just don't know. I never had any negative feelings regarding the boys dark shirt.

Those are some interesting brush strokes in that self portrait.

Sorry, but the original Laszlo image creeps me out.

An off-the-shoulder, below the breast presentation of a 10-year-old, next to her brother or friend, is extremely creepy. Nothing artistic about it. Composition doesn't offer any salvation.

Next slide, please.

Steven,

I never considered the inappropriateness of it. Who knows what was on this guys mind a hundred years ago. I can see where it would probably push some buttons in some circles.

Carlos,

Thank you for those excellent points. How much of the success of your painting example do you contribute to the negative space?

Molly,

Thanks for that info. I have a photo of my father at about one or two in a dress. He is holding an apple with a big bite out of it.

[Chris Saper]

Red

Mary O

[Mike McCarty]

Shakespeare's
Twelfth Night

Clown - Let her hang me: he that is well hanged
in this world needs to fear no colours.

[Cynthia Daniel]

I'm no Golden Ratio expert, but it would be interesting to see how El Jaleo holds up to that.

[Mike McCarty]

Good idea. I should have brought this up long before now.

I don't have time at the moment to illustrate the golden mean, but my rough estimate for "El Jaleo" puts it at approximately the highlight of the guitar being played on the right in the left half of the painting.

If you apply the golden mean to the two photographs I posted above the second one's golden mean is the inside corner of her left eye, the first is in the area of her temple.

Golden Mean = horizontal divided by 2.62, vertical divided by 2.62. With lines drawn representing these numbers, their intersection would be the golden mean.

I'll have time to confirm these measurements a little later, unless someone beats me to it.

[Mike McCarty]

I've used the above calculations to come up with the golden ratio point of interest for "El Jaleo." My calculation puts it at the point I've indicated with the red dot just above the guitar players head.

I would say that the more grand the composition, the more elements involved, the less use this measurement may be. If I apply it to the Valazquez below it comes up quite random in the upper left of center as indicated, yet, if applied to Vermeer's Pearl Ear Ring it hits the mark quite well.

And there is always the possibility that I have not applied the calculation correctly. I hope someone with more knowledge of this principle will come forward and tell what they know.

[John Reidy]

I endorse and teach the concept of The Golden Ratio, The Golden Mean and the Golden Rectangle as a means to an end. I have found that many paintings tend to hold true to this concept. (I have also found many that don't). I believe it to be a good tool to have at your disposal. But, just as a carpenter has many tools, so must the artist. You just need to know what tool fits the job at hand.

Whether or not it was used by the Greeks is not important to me. What is important is the ability to design a good painting. A thorough understanding of this one concept is worth studying to learn all you can from it and then to know how and where to employ it.

As stated earlier in this thread, Composition is simply the arrangement of elements in a painting to please the eye. A good craftsman will use these elements to guide the viewer's eye throughout the painting and hold the attention and the focus of the viewer.

An interesting side note, I examined half a dozen or so paintings I had done before I had ever heard of The Golden Mean. I was surprised to see how easily all of them fit the design. This observation alone leads me to believe the merit of the theory.

[Richard Budig]

On page 88 of Andrew Loomis' book, Creative Illustration, he outlines some simple yet solid ideas about composition. If you have this book, review these pages, and then scroll through the images in this thread and you'll see these principles in most of them. Simple often gets the job done . . .

You can download his books, free, here: http://www.alexhays.com/loomis/

[Tom Edgerton]

I took a workshop in which the mantra was "tools, not rules." That's very useful to remember.

I speak of the Golden Section to my students, as it's just one of many explanations for why your eye might tend to go here and not there. But it's a principle, nothing more. I have a friend who also teaches, and he beats his students over the head with it beyond the point of usefulness. When you believe that a painting that honors the Golden Section is by definition better than one that doesn't, then that's where the discussion goes off the rails. There are many more factors that come into play. Mr. Loomis' discussion of tonal organization is a case in point (thanks, Richard! this is a HUGE link).

Very early in my career, I had the good fortune of having Daniel Greene look at one of my paintings for half a minute. When I queried him about whether I should have done a particular thing (a vignetted area), he said, "Probably not, but you got away with it." That's always stuck with me. Theory aside, a painting either works well or not.

We need a few hip-pocket principles to approach problems in the work. If you're going camping, don't forget your flashlight. But the point of going is to go someplace new and have fun. I think that's part of what Mike and Mr. Gurney are saying, and I agree.

[Richard Budig]

Tom . . .

I recall finding this tonal information from Loomis quite a few years ago, and as sometimes seems to happen, serendipity stepped in to help me see and understand what Loomis was saying. At about that same time, I registered on both the Christie's and Sotheby's art auction sites. When viewing the thumbnails of art for sale on these sites, I was suddenly struck with how clearly I could see the "Loomis Effect" as all these little thumbnails of painting sat there on my computer monitor. Having so many to see all at one time, I could see how the majority of them followed the ideas of having three or four values, especially in portraiture. Your mention of Dan Greene reminded me of the two times I studied with him . . . I heard him say many times, "Never pass up an opportunity to simplify." I think that's one of the principles Loomis puts forth in his ideas . . . keep the composition simple.