I had already taken this pic before I read "Which One?" LindenStreetBridge
by James Muller, on Flickr
[Taken with 55mm f/3.5 AI Micro (1979) and previously posted in the Manual Focus Nikon Glass thread.]
For the sake of context this had to break some composition rules. Whether it works for anyone besides me is not clear.
In fact, I rarely think about supposed rules for composition but instead work intuitively. I have never studied art or composition or design or photography, so I wouldn't know some of the rules if they walked up and said hello. I'm going out on a limb to post this but I'm curious how critics might see it. I have further thoughts on it but I won't post anything until I see some responses to avoid influencing them.
Let me start with a great quote by Edward Western: “To consult the rules of composition before taking a picture is like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk”. With that he meant that in composition lies much more freedom than just the 1/3 rd rule or any other rule. Those so called “rules” are just all guidelines with one sole purpose: to get you to see what you might miss to see. Breaking those “rules’ is fine, but first you must know them.
What is the subject of your photo? Well, since per definition the subject of a photo is the primary element that draws the viewer's eye, is the main focal point, the natural resting point of the eye, I would deduce that the subject is the metal sign on the top right corner of the photo. It is in fact the only area in focus of the image.
It is also the main focus point of the image since the human brain naturally stops to read words, especially when the wording does match the theme of the image. So you clearly want the viewer to read that sign. If that is the intent of your photo you got it
So, looking at your photo just as a viewer, and not as a critic, I am guessing that bridge must have some sort of (sentimental?) meaning to you. However, for the occasional viewer is just a bridge, an old bridge, may be an historic site (converted to road from railroad?) where you went biking (I am guessing the bike in the photo is yours) and decided to take a photo that says: "I was here".
After that the viewer will just move on. IOW not all images have the same impact for everyone. May be an explanation of story of that bridge and the reason why you took that picture would help the viewer get more involved in your image.
One suggestion aimed to improve the impact of your photos. Before wondering how the viewer receives your image you should ask yourself: “Does my photo convey the type of impact or feeling I envisioned?”
As far as the critique goes, it is hard to offer a helpful critique not knowing the for certain the intent of the photo. May be you should have focused more on the structural design, geometric lines, and engineering of the bridge itself. Use a different vantage point. Just saying, not having clear your intent.
Shasoc wrote
Let me start with a great quote by Edward Western: “To consult the rules of composition before taking a picture is like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk”... Breaking those “rules’ is fine, but first you must know them.
He! Mr. Weston's [proper spelling - I had to look it up] line is humorous and conveys a good idea but it is a flawed analogy. You can have full confidence without checking that the law of gravity applies all the time ("I'm reading a great book on anti-gravity. I can't put it down."), and you couldn't break it if you wanted to! I might quibble with the idea that you must know the rules to break them, but you certainly must have your own criteria for what is good and what isn't. I know lots of musicians who, ah, lack such discrimination.
What is the subject of your photo? ...I would deduce that the subject is the metal sign on the top right corner of the photo... If that is the intent of your photo you got it
Correct and thank you. I started this thread specifically as a counter-example to comments in the "Which One?" thread about placing the subject in the center. While I agree in general, especially in that girl-with-the-box photo, I felt there can be exceptions. I didn't want to post my picture in someone else's thread, but I wanted to see if mine worked. That an image could "break the rules" and still work as intended is just a generality drawn from the specific. Of course we all know that such rules are never absolute.
So, looking... just as a viewer, ...I am guessing that bridge must have some sort of meaning...
Right on most counts but misses some key points which admittedly might not be meaningful to everyone. That bridge is 132 years old, part of the late 19th century industrialization. Even in this older part of the country it is historically noteworthy. You know it was a RR bridge from the name. It is wide enough to be only a single track, not part of a mainline, so is probably a siding for freight. The pavement over it is way too narrow to be a road but is a bike trail, used by bikes, pedestrians, joggers, baby strollers, children heading to school, people walking to work. It's part of the environmental movement to provide alternatives to car traffic, simultaneously providing recreational opportunities. IOW the intersection of old technology and the current world. Yes, it is my bike and says "I was here" but that's not the point (In BikeForums.net I might be chastised for not showing the drive side of the bike!) Finally, I hope it raises the question "What adventure lies around that bend?" Maybe only a cyclist would see that.
IOW not all images have the same impact for everyone. May be an explanation of story of that bridge and the reason why you took that picture would help the viewer get more involved in your image... you should ask yourself: “Does my photo convey the type of impact or feeling I envisioned?”
That's a valid question to ask oneself. I see lots of images in FM that do nothing for me. And some that are interesting for only technical reasons. I would argue that an image shouldn't need an explanation unless there is a reason for it. (I read an interview of a NatGeo editor who said wildlife explanations were required because viewers would want to know what and where an animal was.) A visually interesting image can be lovely on its own. (Think van Gogh or Renoir or Rembrandt or Ansel Adams.)
Maybe you should have focused more on the structural design, geometric lines, and engineering of the bridge itself.
I could have done those things but that would have changed the whole vibe. It would have been a different picture.
Thanks for the thoughtful and thought-provoking reply!
jimmuller wrote:
He! Mr. Weston's [proper spelling - I had to look it up] line is humorous and conveys a good idea but it is a flawed analogy. You can have full confidence without checking that the law of gravity applies all the time ("I'm reading a great book on anti-gravity. I can't put it down."), and you couldn't break it if you wanted to! I might quibble with the idea that you must know the rules to break them, but you certainly must have your own criteria for what is good and what isn't. I know lots of musicians who, ah, lack such discrimination.
Correct and thank you. I started this thread specifically as a counter-example to comments in the "Which One?" thread about placing the subject in the center. While I agree in general, especially in that girl-with-the-box photo, I felt there can be exceptions. I didn't want to post my picture in someone else's thread, but I wanted to see if mine worked. That an image could "break the rules" and still work as intended is just a generality drawn from the specific. Of course we all know that such rules are never absolute.
Right on most counts but misses some key points which admittedly might not be meaningful to everyone. That bridge is 132 years old, part of the late 19th century industrialization. Even in this older part of the country it is historically noteworthy. You know it was a RR bridge from the name. It is wide enough to be only a single track, not part of a mainline, so is probably a siding for freight. The pavement over it is way too narrow to be a road but is a bike trail, used by bikes, pedestrians, joggers, baby strollers, children heading to school, people walking to work. It's part of the environmental movement to provide alternatives to car traffic, simultaneously providing recreational opportunities. IOW the intersection of old technology and the current world. Yes, it is my bike and says "I was here" but that's not the point (In BikeForums.net I might be chastised for not showing the drive side of the bike!) Finally, I hope it raises the question "What adventure lies around that bend?" Maybe only a cyclist would see that.
That's a valid question to ask oneself. I see lots of images in FM that do nothing for me. And some that are interesting for only technical reasons. I would argue that an image shouldn't need an explanation unless there is a reason for it. (I read an interview of a NatGeo editor who said wildlife explanations were required because viewers would want to know what and where an animal was.) A visually interesting image can be lovely on its own. (Think van Gogh or Renoir or Rembrandt or Ansel Adams.)
I could have done those things but that would have changed the whole vibe. It would have been a different picture.
Thanks for the thoughtful and thought-provoking reply! ...Show more →
You clearly stood there and took a photo of a bridge with a bike parked on it and a sign bolted to it and you are telling me the tiny sign on a great big bridge is the subject. Why isn’t the bike or the rust on the bridge the subject?
This is why people cannot compose, they don’t even know what they are taking photos of.
Lets play pretend: You are standing at the checkout counter that has five different photos on the wall and they do not have names or any kind of ID. In trying to explain to the check out clerk which photo you want, are you going to say, “I would like the sign photo, or are you going to say I want the bridge photo?”
The sign and the bike are both focal points, they move the viewers eyes around the bridge. Had you only wanted to make a photo of the sign you shouldn’t have put that big distracting bridge in the photo.
grandmas wrote:
You clearly stood there and took a photo of a bridge with a bike parked on it and a sign bolted to it and you are telling me the tiny sign on a great big bridge is the subject. Why isn’t the bike or the rust on the bridge the subject?
This is why people cannot compose, they don’t even know what they are taking photos of.
... Had you only wanted to make a photo of the sign you shouldn’t have put that big distracting bridge in the photo.
Well, yes I did do that and yes I am telling you that. But I didn't just stand there and take a picture. I had both thought and intent. I positioned the bike like that purposefully. BTW, that isn't rust, it's paint. The bridge had/has been well-maintained. Otherwise it would show its 132 years of age.
I didn't want just a picture of a sign. I wanted to tell a story, to show the connectivity of the past and the present. The sign isn't the real subject, the date on it and the fact that the bridge originally built for RR has been re-purposed are the subject. The sign needs context or else it's just a shiny new plaque with an old date.
This is why I normally probably shouldn't have put up that picture at all. Your definition of "compose" adheres to different rules than mine.
Or maybe your note was tongue-in-cheek and an emoji didn't make it to the screen.
grandmas wrote:
You clearly stood there and took a photo of a bridge with a bike parked on it and a sign bolted to it and you are telling me the tiny sign on a great big bridge is the subject. Why isn’t the bike or the rust on the bridge the subject?
This is why people cannot compose, they don’t even know what they are taking photos of.
Lets play pretend: You are standing at the checkout counter that has five different photos on the wall and they do not have names or any kind of ID. In trying to explain to the check out clerk which photo you want, are you going to say, “I would like the sign photo, or are you going to say I want the bridge photo?”
The sign and the bike are both focal points, they move the viewers eyes around the bridge. Had you only wanted to make a photo of the sign you shouldn’t have put that big distracting bridge in the photo. ...Show more →
-----------------------
Had you only wanted to make a photo of the sign you shouldn’t have put that big distracting bridge in the photo.
Is the bridge that gives meaning to the sign. The bridge is part of the story. It you take it away, the sign would loose its meaning and there would be no story.
Why isn’t the bike or the rust on the bridge the subject?
Because they aren't. Because the photog decides the subject of the story he wants to tell. Not the viewer. It is a very personal relationship between the photog and the subject.
This is why people cannot compose
That is a harsh comment. Composition is not a science. It's the extension of the photog style, it's a way to show the viewer how he sees the world. Composition is a personal artistic decision. You may like it or not, but that is a different story.
Saying "people cannot compose" makes no sense and sounds like you only see your personal taste as if it is the only measure of good work.
jimmuller wrote:
Well, yes I did do that and yes I am telling you that. But I didn't just stand there and take a picture. I had both thought and intent. I positioned the bike like that purposefully. BTW, that isn't rust, it's paint. The bridge had/has been well-maintained. Otherwise it would show its 132 years of age.
I didn't want just a picture of a sign. I wanted to tell a story, to show the connectivity of the past and the present. The sign isn't the real subject, the date on it and the fact that the bridge originally built for RR has been re-purposed are the subject. The sign needs context or else it's just a shiny new plaque with an old date.
This is why I normally probably shouldn't have put up that picture at all. Your definition of "compose" adheres to different rules than mine.
Or maybe your note was tongue-in-cheek and an emoji didn't make it to the screen. ...Show more →
Look, I would like for people to learn how to compose, it is very simple. For some reason people think tiny little bits of a photo are the subject of the whole image. Until people learn what they are taking photos of they will never know how to compose. I know it hurts to hear this but I do not know how to say it in a way that folks can understand. When you think the photo is about a sign, and it is really about a bridge, how can you tell a story to others and make them understand. People see a bridge.
I actually think for your story you shot the photo correctly. The problem is that you and others do not know that the subject is the bridge.
People also take photos with one subject on one half of the photo and another completely different subject on the other half of a photo, which makes a totally confusing photo with viewers not knowing what the photo is about..
Composition is easy, people make it hard.
Sorry I didn’t give you the answer you were looking for, but I would like for folks to learn. I have been shouting into the wind for several years on this forum.
What if someone wrote a book and gave it two titles, wouldn’t you think that would be confusing?
At the end of a performance have you ever seen the lead performers come down to the left side or the right side of the stage to take a bow, no they are at the center of the stage.
I can’t even tell you how many times I have been told that my subjects are too centered. Following rules in not in my playbook.
I probably have done some more shouting into the wind, but you asked.
That is a harsh comment. Composition is not a science. It's the extension of the photog style, it's a way to show the viewer how he sees the world. Composition is a personal artistic decision. You may like it or not, but that is a different story.
Saying "people cannot compose" makes no sense and sounds like you only see your personal taste as if it is the only measure of good work.
Socrate
Yes it is probably harsh, but people do not need to guess what the subject is, they should be able to look at a photo and know what it is about. (There are other types of photos where this may not apply.) May not be exactly the same as what the photographer intended, but they shouldn't have to guess.
I agree that composition is a personal artistic decision, and when you learn the difference between the subject and the focal points you have way more leeway for composing in different and interesting ways.
The sign is bolted to the bridge which makes it a part of the bridge, so again the photo is about the bridge. The sign also tells us about the bridge.
I wouldn't title a book about a sign, when it is about the whole bridge, but that is just me.
grandmas wrote:
I actually think for your story you shot the photo correctly. The problem is that you and others do not know that the subject is the bridge.
...
Composition is easy, people make it hard.
Sorry I didn’t give you the answer you were looking for
From the first line quoted above I'd say your gripe isn't with the composition, it's with the use of the word "subject". If I'd named this thread "Find the main compositional theme" then it would be okay. Of course, the bridge as the centered subject would be OOF shading into bokeh.
To the second line quoted, composing that picture was in fact easy. I tried a few arrangements, picked the one that told the story best and picked a shot that was technically okay, i.e. focused, aligned properly, had no extraneous stuff, etc. It was intuitive and not hard.
To the third line quoted, you did answer my question. I knew what the overall picture was meant to say. I wasn't sure if the layout of the elements would lead the viewers' eyes to see, or rather, to look at and then see the important element. Whether they recognized what they saw, which requires a bit of thought, was not my question.
And yes, I have seen performers take bows from the side of the stage. (As guitarist and lead singer in a band we formed 48 years ago, I have done it myself many time for various reasons. Center stage is one of your rules, not necessarily mine.)
jimmuller wrote:
From the first line quoted above I'd say your gripe isn't with the composition, it's with the use of the word "subject". If I'd named this thread "Find the main compositional theme" then it would be okay. Of course, the bridge as the centered subject would be OOF shading into bokeh.
To the second line quoted, composing that picture was in fact easy. I tried a few arrangements, picked the one that told the story best and picked a shot that was technically okay, i.e. focused, aligned properly, had no extraneous stuff, etc. It was intuitive and not hard.
To the third line quoted, you did answer my question. I knew what the overall picture was meant to say. I wasn't sure if the layout of the elements would lead the viewers' eyes to see, or rather, to look at and then see the important element. Whether they recognized what they saw, which requires a bit of thought, was not my question.
And yes, I have seen performers take bows from the side of the stage. (As guitarist and lead singer in a band we formed 48 years ago, I have done it myself many time for various reasons. Center stage is one of your rules, not necessarily mine.)
Text in a photo is a natural focal point, it is natural for our eyes to seek text. Eyes and body curves are also focal points. Something you might want to keep in mind for future photos.
The point I was making about performance is that you do not have to guess who the lead players are, we can tell.
Yes it is probably harsh, but people do not need to guess what the subject is, they should be able to look at a photo and know what it is about. (There are other types of photos where this may not apply.) May not be exactly the same as what the photographer intended, but they shouldn't have to guess.
I agree that composition is a personal artistic decision, and when you learn the difference between the subject and the focal points you have way more leeway for composing in different and interesting ways.
The sign is bolted to the bridge which makes it a part of the bridge, so again the photo is about the bridge. The sign also tells us about the bridge.
I wouldn't title a book about a sign, when it is about the whole bridge, but that is just me.
-------------------------------- and when you learn the difference between the subject and the focal points you have way more leeway for composing in different and interesting ways.
Yes, I want to learn. Tell me all about the difference between the subject and the focal points. I am eager to hear from the know-it-all wise person.
Yes, I want to learn. Tell me all about the difference between the subject and the focal points. I am eager to hear from the know-it-all wise person.
Socrate
I’m going to answer your question as though you are serious.
I am not good at writing or expressing myself or I would have put it in writing a long time ago.
I think the best advise anyone can give is, to tell others to study old art until you figure some things out. The most studied piece of art I think is “The Last Supper”. Ask yourself questions like, why is the main character sitting in front of a white background and stands out more than others in the painting, and yet the painting is titled “The Last Supper?” Why are the others in groups of three? Look at other old stuff and ask any possible question you can think of. Study them till you think you understand them. When you have a question you cannot figure out by yourself, maybe ask someone?
You can also learn from mother nature. Study shapes and forms. Why does a curved sidewalk look more interesting than a straight one? Look at a flower and pay attention to where your eyes go. When you see something that pulls your eyes, ask what it is about it that gets your attention?
I think the answers are all out there you just need to go look for them in the right places.
I don’t have all the answers, nor does anyone else, and there will always be exceptions to anything you or I might think is true.
I’m going to answer your question as though you are serious.
I am not good at writing or expressing myself or I would have put it in writing a long time ago.
I think the best advise anyone can give is, to tell others to study old art until you figure some things out. The most studied piece of art I think is “The Last Supper”. Ask yourself questions like, why is the main character sitting in front of a white background and stands out more than others in the painting, and yet the painting is titled “The Last Supper?” Why are the others in groups of three? Look at other old stuff and ask any possible question you can think of. Study them till you think you understand them. When you have a question you cannot figure out by yourself, maybe ask someone?
You can also learn from mother nature. Study shapes and forms. Why does a curved sidewalk look more interesting than a straight one? Look at a flower and pay attention to where your eyes go. When you see something that pulls your eyes, ask what it is about it that gets your attention?
I think the answers are all out there you just need to go look for them in the right places.
I don’t have all the answers, nor does anyone else, and there will always be exceptions to anything you or I might think is true.
Thanks for the advice, GM, but I already studied Leonardo’s Last Supper, together with other master pieces (mostly Italian) in high school as part of my Art and History of Art subjects. My scholar education was also based on classic subjects, ancient Roman and Greek art, including learning the ancient Latin and Greek literature and language. And I also had the opportunity to see the actual painting (or what was left of it) during my young days. Where did you study old art?
If you want to know the real reason why the main character stands out more than others in the Last Supper is because Leonardo positioned that figure right on the vanishing point of the painting. All receding lines point to Jesus head. The first thing Leonardo did before painting the Last Supper was hammer a nail in the wall in that position and pulled actual strings from that nail. You can still see a little hole in the wall in Jesus right temple. The fact that he sits in front of a white background, as you said, is secondary.
I can also tell you about what Leonardo called the “complex perspective” of that painting. A clever manipulation of the perspective of the painting that Leonardo realized was needed since such a large painting would be seen from different parts of the room. He used a few tricks and artificial perspective in that painting to accommodate different POV.
Why are the others in groups of three? Different reasons. Artistically to balance the image putting Jesus right in the middle. There is also a symbolic reason for the number three in the Christian theology. Here is another of Leonardo's trick. Leonardo put them all on one side of the table and clearly there is not enough space for all to sit. The table is too narrow.
BTW, from what I gather from your comments looks like you missed the real power of that painting: the “drama”. Do you know which exact moment of that famous supper is depicted in the painting?
Also, if you are interested in Leonardo’s painting technique of the Last Supper let me know. I will try to make it short for you.
Socrate
P. S. I am still looking forward to your explanation of the difference between the subject and the focal points
Shasoc wrote:
If you want to know the real reason why the main character stands out more than others in the Last Supper is because Leonardo positioned that figure right on the vanishing point of the painting. All receding lines point to Jesus head. The first thing Leonardo did before painting the Last Supper was hammer a nail in the wall in that position and pulled actual strings from that nail. You can still see a little hole in the wall in Jesus right temple. The fact that he sits in front of a white background, as you said, is secondary.
I can also tell you about what Leonardo called the “complex perspective” of that painting.
A clever manipulation of the perspective of the painting that Leonardo realized was needed since such a large painting would be seen from different parts of the room. He used a few tricks and artificial perspective in that painting to accommodate different POV....Show more →
Interesting. I assume you mean the roof beams and similar. I have seen prints of The Last Supper many times (in my parents' and grandparents' houses and elsewhere) but never noticed the room details per se. If the convergence you describe had some affect on my eye movement then it was hidden to me. But then, as I wrote in m response to the "Which One?" thread, I tend to see the main subject of any picture and never even look at, let alone see, the peripheral details.
To my eye the reason Jesus is the center of visual attention is because He is larger, more illuminated, in the center of the room and the painting, and with space between Himself and everyone else. Any viewer would look for Jesus given the theological implications of the scene. So the converging roof lines could serve the dual purpose of creating a "real room" perspective and guaranteeing that Jesus appeared to be in the middle of the room for Da Vinci's painting purposes but not necessarily for drawing the viewers' eyes there other than the placement of Jesus. FWIW, I doubt that anyone in my family ever wondered what the "exact moment" represented, though that does explain the anguished behavior of the Apostles.
I'm not sure what "complex perspective" refers to. I once visited a chapel in Milan in which the painter had used perspective to simulate a large cathedral on a flat wall behind the altar. I don't recall where, what chapel, or anything else. It was a long time ago and I was so worn out that I didn't catch it then, didn't remember it even a minute later.
On a related note I observe how the bridge and road lines in my picture above give it a 3-D appearance. Real perspective in a real space. Hard to avoid in an environment like that, not something I set up consciously (though maybe intuitively) as the photographer. But I'll take it.
All that being said, I sure don't want to prolong an off-topic discussion. I have learned what I wanted to know and then some.
Thanks.
Thanks for the advice, GM, but I already studied Leonardo’s Last Supper, together with other master pieces (mostly Italian) in high school as part of my Art and History of Art subjects. My scholar education was also based on classic subjects, ancient Roman and Greek art, including learning the ancient Latin and Greek literature and language. And I also had the opportunity to see the actual painting (or what was left of it) during my young days. Where did you study old art?
If you want to know the real reason why the main character stands out more than others in the Last Supper is because Leonardo positioned that figure right on the vanishing point of the painting. All receding lines point to Jesus head. The first thing Leonardo did before painting the Last Supper was hammer a nail in the wall in that position and pulled actual strings from that nail. You can still see a little hole in the wall in Jesus right temple. The fact that he sits in front of a white background, as you said, is secondary.
I can also tell you about what Leonardo called the “complex perspective” of that painting. A clever manipulation of the perspective of the painting that Leonardo realized was needed since such a large painting would be seen from different parts of the room. He used a few tricks and artificial perspective in that painting to accommodate different POV.
Why are the others in groups of three? Different reasons. Artistically to balance the image putting Jesus right in the middle. There is also a symbolic reason for the number three in the Christian theology. Here is another of Leonardo's trick. Leonardo put them all on one side of the table and clearly there is not enough space for all to sit. The table is too narrow.
BTW, from what I gather from your comments looks like you missed the real power of that painting: the “drama”. Do you know which exact moment of that famous supper is depicted in the painting?
Also, if you are interested in Leonardo’s painting technique of the Last Supper let me know. I will try to make it short for you.
Socrate
P. S. I am still looking forward to your explanation of the difference between the subject and the focal points...Show more →
How interesting, so why did you not learn the differences of subjects and focal points or elements as you might call them?
The white background behind Jesus intentionally makes Jesus stand out from the others giving him more prominence. The white background or window is a “focal point”!
It is titled “The Last Supper” because that is “the subject” of the “whole painting” and it includes everyone and everything in the painting. The subject is not a tiny focal point or element picked out of the whole painting.
We can only guess why he chose to put the disciples in groups of three, but a possible reason is that groups of three or odd numbers add interest. He could have done two groups of six, but he chose to do three, either would work. It is also interesting that there are four groups of three, with Jesus being in the middle making it all come together. The painting is pure genius and can be as simple as one wants to make it, or as complex as they want.
Eyes, text, and body curves are always focal points, because our brains are wired to seek them out. Other focal points pull your eyes like a tiny bug on a flower, or contrast like one red flower (the red flower being the focal point) in a field of white flowers. A tiny boat in a large body of water would be a focal point. If something in an image pulls your eyes and is a small part of the whole image, its probably a focal point or element. Whether you choose to call something an element or a focal point is up to the viewer. A patch of light on a dark surface is a focal point that draws the viewers eyes, but I’m guessing that most would not think of it as an element, however contrast is an element. Yes some focal points in an image have more pull than others, but that does not make them the subject.
The subject is what the whole image is about, like the bridge in the original post.
The topic has some history behind it for folks in the forum. I won't rehash them, atm. Rather, here are some of my recent compositions ... for your purview.
jimmuller wrote:
Interesting. I assume you mean the roof beams and similar. I have seen prints of The Last Supper many times (in my parents' and grandparents' houses and elsewhere) but never noticed the room details per se. If the convergence you describe had some affect on my eye movement then it was hidden to me. But then, as I wrote in m response to the "Which One?" thread, I tend to see the main subject of any picture and never even look at, let alone see, the peripheral details.
To my eye the reason Jesus is the center of visual attention is because He is larger, more illuminated, in the center of the room and the painting, and with space between Himself and everyone else. Any viewer would look for Jesus given the theological implications of the scene. So the converging roof lines could serve the dual purpose of creating a "real room" perspective and guaranteeing that Jesus appeared to be in the middle of the room for Da Vinci's painting purposes but not necessarily for drawing the viewers' eyes there other than the placement of Jesus. FWIW, I doubt that anyone in my family ever wondered what the "exact moment" represented, though that does explain the anguished behavior of the Apostles.
I'm not sure what "complex perspective" refers to. I once visited a chapel in Milan in which the painter had used perspective to simulate a large cathedral on a flat wall behind the altar. I don't recall where, what chapel, or anything else. It was a long time ago and I was so worn out that I didn't catch it then, didn't remember it even a minute later.
On a related note I observe how the bridge and road lines in my picture above give it a 3-D appearance. Real perspective in a real space. Hard to avoid in an environment like that, not something I set up consciously (though maybe intuitively) as the photographer. But I'll take it.
All that being said, I sure don't want to prolong an off-topic discussion. I have learned what I wanted to know and then some.
Thanks....Show more →
--------------------
I once visited a chapel in Milan in which the painter had used perspective to simulate a large cathedral on a flat wall behind the altar. I don't recall where, what chapel, or anything else. It was a long time ago and I was so worn out that I didn't catch it then, didn't remember it even a minute later.
May be it was the Milan's Church of Santa Maria presso Santo Spirito. The name of the architect/artist was Bramante, A very good friend of Leonardo. Because there was not enough room for the choir area, Bramante painted a trompe l'oeil, an optical illusion that made it seem as if there was more space. It's the only church I can think of.
How interesting, so why did you not learn the differences of subjects and focal points or elements as you might call them?
The white background behind Jesus intentionally makes Jesus stand out from the others giving him more prominence. The white background or window is a “focal point”!
It is titled “The Last Supper” because that is “the subject” of the “whole painting” and it includes everyone and everything in the painting. The subject is not a tiny focal point or element picked out of the whole painting.
We can only guess why he chose to put the disciples in groups of three, but a possible reason is that groups of three or odd numbers add interest. He could have done two groups of six, but he chose to do three, either would work. It is also interesting that there are four groups of three, with Jesus being in the middle making it all come together. The painting is pure genius and can be as simple as one wants to make it, or as complex as they want.
Eyes, text, and body curves are always focal points, because our brains are wired to seek them out. Other focal points pull your eyes like a tiny bug on a flower, or contrast like one red flower (the red flower being the focal point) in a field of white flowers. A tiny boat in a large body of water would be a focal point. If something in an image pulls your eyes and is a small part of the whole image, its probably a focal point or element. Whether you choose to call something an element or a focal point is up to the viewer. A patch of light on a dark surface is a focal point that draws the viewers eyes, but I’m guessing that most would not think of it as an element, however contrast is an element. Yes some focal points in an image have more pull than others, but that does not make them the subject.
The subject is what the whole image is about, like the bridge in the original post.
Shasoc wrote:
May be it was the Milan's Church of Santa Maria presso Santo Spirito. The name of the architect/artist was Bramante, A very good friend of Leonardo. Because there was not enough room for the choir area, Bramante painted a trompe l'oeil, an optical illusion that made it seem as if there was more space. It's the only church I can think of.
Socrate
Ah. Thank you. You are most certainly correct. On that occasion Mass was in progress which we didn't want to disturb y doing anything more than poke our heads around the corner.
It was at the end of a tiring week in Milan on business. The hosts took me around, showed me some of the sights, including the cathedral finally finished with the gold door after (what?) 900 years. I had not recovered from jet lag the entire week! Long story why but not worth telling.
jimmuller wrote:
Ah. Thank you. You are most certainly correct. On that occasion Mass was in progress which we didn't want to disturb y doing anything more than poke our heads around the corner.
It was at the end of a tiring week in Milan on business. The hosts took me around, showed me some of the sights, including the cathedral finally finished with the gold door after (what?) 900 years. I had not recovered from jet lag the entire week! Long story why but not worth telling.
Now I must look up Bramante.
Jim
Here is an interesting fact about Bramante. He is the architect that build the addition of a new dining hall in the convent of S. Maria delle Grazie. That is the same dining hall where Leonardo right after the construction painted the Last Supper. Cool!
Socrate
P.S. Look at Bramante's Heraclitus and Democritus affresco. The man on the left (Heraclitus, crying) is Leonardo, while the man on the right (Democritus, laughing) is himself, Bramante. two different visions of the world placed in the center of the painting.
I might quibble with the idea that you must know the rules to break them, but you certainly must have your own criteria for what is good and what isn't. I know lots of musicians who, ah, lack such discrimination.
