FlyPenFly wrote:
it's fine and great to break the rules but understand it first, the context, the concepts, and the reasons then break them.
Why? "Understanding" the rules might as well keep you from breaking them. If you never jump into the box, you don't have to get out of there.
This way you won't look like a fool who just doesn't know what he is doing. And if you love breaking the rules all the time you work will look trite.
There's no connection between knowing the rules and knowing what you are doing. People who care more about what others think of them than what they want to do, will probably never get further than duplicating others work.
The only reason for teaching rules would be for people that are mentally blind. Those who have absolutely no feeling for what looks good and what doesn't. But I doubt they will enjoy photography anyway. Why would you get into something that is all about seeing if you can't see?
Rules are great, because when uncle Bob asks me why his photos don't look so good, I have something to tell him. I don't need them personally though, I know what I want.
carstenw wrote:
Rules are great, because when uncle Bob asks me why his photos don't look so good, I have something to tell him. I don't need them personally though, I know what I want.
Do you really need rules for that? I would guess that you could tell him what looks good and bad without mentioning a single rule. I mean, the rules come from feelings, not the other way around.
Makten wrote:
Why? "Understanding" the rules might as well keep you from breaking them. If you never jump into the box, you don't have to get out of there.
This is similar to someone telling me, I don't want to learn aperture, ISO, or shutter speed because that's just going to make me think one way. I just want to use Instagram.
There's no connection between knowing the rules and knowing what you are doing. People who care more about what others think of them than what they want to do, will probably never get further than duplicating others work.
That's really pretty arrogant. I like your images and all but lack of knowledge doesn't equate to better map making. If you want to explore new horizons you need to know what's already been explored so you can chart out new places and find new connections.
For me learning how to operate a camera system has almost nothing to do with creating art with one. That would be like saying: Learning where the gearshift is and how it works determines not only when you will decide to shift but also which destination you'll choose to drive to. Not really related. And to parallel something Mak said: The person who needs to monitor RPM and apply rules in order to shift gears probably has no feeling for driving a car and probably will not enjoy it much.
I like his comment in post 13 but would modify it slightly: "The only reason for needing to teach rules would be for people that are mentally blind. Those who have [little or] no feeling for what looks good and what doesn't."
FlyPenFly wrote:
This is similar to someone telling me, I don't want to learn aperture, ISO, or shutter speed because that's just going to make me think one way. I just want to use Instagram.
Ummm, no. ISO and shutter speed are technical parameters that are based on physics. Twice the shutter speed is going to alter the exposure just the same amount every time. That's a real rule, not a made up one based on feelings.
That's really pretty arrogant. I like your images and all but lack of knowledge doesn't equate to better map making. If you want to explore new horizons you need to know what's already been explored so you can chart out new places and find new connections.
That's a really weird connection. I've never said anything about exploring new horizons. I just want to take pictures that I like and I don't need no rules for that, because I have eyes to see with and a brain to feel and think with.
Why are people so scared of knowledge?
Because it can prove them wrong. Luckily, you don't need knowledge to like an image or not. But you need knowledge to set up your camera to get what you want. That's a different story.
The way the brain sees an image and what it likes is based on chemistry and physics as well
That's where the rules came from because most people who have eyes and a brain see images in mostly the same way. This is the foundation of where classics come from.
I think it's very different for each individual. Don't think so? Ask ten different people to describe or define the color red. The process of viewing, recognizing, associating and appreciating or evaluating colors, hues, and shapes is very dissimilar between different individuals. What rules can be applied certainly do alter or diminish the artistic nature of photography if they're used to guide or control. And what I think is a major point being made here is that they just aren't needed for making art with your camera - in fact they may be a hinderance.
Most driving enthusiasts have been taught the rules of the road, understand a little about the technical chemistry & physics involved (i.e. contact patch, tire composition @ soft = sticky) and yet drive much more viscerally after having learned "out-in-out" technique.
Personally, I've taught my kids how & why the lines are painted on the road ... but moreover, I want them to understand how to remain in control, regardless of whether they are inside or outside the lines. Beyond that ... it's their call @ driving like grandma or a professor or taking it to a passionate art form of Mario Andretti (socially responsibe of course) down a twisty mountain road. No different @ camera, paint brush or chisel ... where you take it is up to you.
Rules are tools to help you achieve your goals, they aren't restrictions ... unless you allow them to be.
really interesting discussion. In my high school years I too used to believe there are no rules in the land of art. I had been kind of romantizating the romanticism, if you know what I mean. Then I came across E.A. Poe's Philosophy of Composition. I was quite furious at Poe - he simply denied the "divine inspiration" of the artist and harshly but reasonably described his perfectly rational composition of The Raven. (It was probably quite exagerrated, but nevertheless really enlightening.)
I think we simply cannot deny that there are inherent structures in every piece of art. (Even in artefacts that aims to deny the existence of these structures, for example Warhol's movie about sleeping. Or even over-exposed all-white picture on the wall of a gallery.) Since the beginning of reflection of art people tend to try to find and understand these formal principles and to describe them or use them in their own work.
So-called rules are therefore of empiric origin and it would be hard to deny that they really work. Nevertheless you can be of course perfectly ignorant of these rules and still "use" them. In fact I think Makten himself sometimes "use" for example the principle of golden equation. (Even if he may claim that he dont know what it is.) On the other hand if one simply blindly obey rules, he simply can not make a piece of art. (But he still is able to make a nice picture - maybe kitsch. There are many photographical genres that could be hardly considered art. Wedding photography for example tends to be simply craft, doesn't it?)
But than again - what it is what we call art? Ancient Greeks wouldn't probably consider photography an art, because they distinguished between arts - musical arts of divine inspiration - and "techné", "craft" and every form of visual arts was "only" craft for them.
Your are right, Makten - even if you are not educated you are perfectly able to like an image or not. But I frankly doubt you can appreciate the art in it and/or understand it. Because art is an act of communication and if you are ignorant of the language of art...
I apologize for interrupting your discussion and for off-topic.
RustyBug wrote:
Most driving enthusiasts have been taught the rules of the road...
I honestly don't understand the connection between driving safely and making a good looking picture. The rules of the road are only there for safety, while you don't need to protect anyone from seeing a picture if it doesn't follow the rules. It's not gonna hurt.
tunak wrote:
Nevertheless you can be of course perfectly ignorant of these rules and still "use" them. In fact I think Makten himself sometimes "use" for example the principle of golden equation. (Even if he may claim that he dont know what it is.)
Exactly. I know what it is but I never think about it, because I don't see the point and I trust my own mind. I would never, ever "check" if my pictures fit the rules or not. If they do, who cares? If they don't, who cares?
Makten wrote:
I would never, ever "check" if my pictures fit the rules or not. If they do, who cares? If they don't, who cares?
this is my problem with calling them rules. you should never "check" if your pictures fit the rules or not. you can use them to guide in building your composition if you like, but if you have the composition you want why would you go through a list of rules and make sure you have all your boxes checked? the point of the the "rules" is not that pictures should conform to these guidelines, it's that we know something about how the mind works and you can choose to take advantage of that if you like.
Makten wrote:
I honestly don't understand the connection between driving safely and making a good looking picture. The rules of the road are only there for safety, while you don't need to protect anyone from seeing a picture if it doesn't follow the rules. It's not gonna hurt.
Yeah, I get that it's a "strectch" in some regard, but ...
If it is your GOAL to drive safely, the rules are there to help you do so.
If it is your GOAL to make aesthetically pleasing pictures, the rules are also there to help you do so.
In neither case does following the rules guarantee/ensure that you'll achieve your goal ... nor does a departure from the rules necessarily prevent you from achieving your goal.
Besides ... I've seen some really "painful" pics that I wish someone would have "protected" me from.
One thing that I find interesting @ "rules of composition" ranging from Rule Of Thirds to Golden Mean to Golden Spiral to Fibonacci and even more ... is that the rules are kind of a "chicken & egg" reverse engineering for explaining what "looks good". I can apply a ROT or Golden Mean to a scene and totally ruin it because it can be incongruous with the other elments (i.e. scale, color, tonal value, etc.) involved ... i.e. rules are tools ... you decide which tools you want to use, be that a lens, a hammer or a composition as it pertains to your goals.
I often don't set out to crop to a given comp ... but after getting a crop/comp that I like, I will reflect a bit on if it "matches up" with ROT or Golden Mean, etc.as an intrigue ... but I don't use them as "driving" forces to dictate what I do.
Nice first post tunak! Welcome to the forum and to the discussion!
_____________________
It sounds to me like the discussion here has now bent over to meet Mak's original meaning. Hehehe... I guess we'll have to wait for Brian, Frank and PenFly to see if everyone is on board with that now.
RustyBug wrote:
If it is your GOAL to make aesthetically pleasing pictures, the rules are also there to help you do so.
The problem is, that the rules most people here are thinking of, are NOT the same in all cultures. It's something you learn, but if you refuse to do so, you might not even feel that they are "right". Get it?
The same goes for music. For example, arabic music has quarternotes that sound false in a westerners ears, before he learns to like them. They are "rules" that only applies if one likes these rules.
If you follow the rules, your work will fit better in the culture they belong to. In some countries they drive on the "wrong" side of the road. Your rules are not much worth there.
An excellant example of that is in page layout! I did the owner's manuals for Toyota's "small cars and trucks" for a few years - in 13 different languages. Almost every culture has different layout rules! Some completely different. And each looks weird or just wrong to another culture.
They are "rules" that only applies if one likes these rules.
I'd suggest they are "rules" that only apply if those are your goals.
+1 @ Audobon rules are different from Italy vs. LA vs. HK vs. Montana vs. London vs. Perth vs. Trinidad.
Rules @ tools to help you achieve your goal ... i.e. if your goal is to drive safely in THAT LOCATION where you are driving ...
If your goal is to appeal to Japanese art genre ... that is a different goal (and thus different "rules") than Carribean or African art.
The "rules" of religous art from centuries ago were vastly different as well ... they had different goals and used different rules to aid in achieving those goals.
I guess we are kinda saying the same thing owing to a degree of relativity rather than absoluteness in the development and application of "rules". I just tend to think of it in terms of relativity to your goals rather than a "must be" because ...
Makten wrote:
Do you really need rules for that? I would guess that you could tell him what looks good and bad without mentioning a single rule. I mean, the rules come from feelings, not the other way around.
Well, try it The first step is probably to say "try not to put the subject smack in the middle". Where to put it? On a third, or golden cut, or whatever, right? So there is the first rule. Most of these people do not really care enough about photography to experiment with placement, they just want to know some easy way to improve the photos.
And IMO, those are exactly the kinds of people who rules are perfect for. I don't care about rules, although I of course know them. Mostly I just read them, shrug my shoulders and keep doing whatever I am doing. Once a year I try one, and usually give it up again.
I mean, the rules come from feelings, not the other way around.
