My point is 1,3,5 is just as blinding as symmetry of 2. There is nothing inherently wrong with either and nothing inherently right. The 1,3,5 convention was created as a counter to neoclassicism. There is nothing scientific about it. It was created by early modernists to dismiss the past.
Kevner wrote:
My point is 1,3,5 is just as blinding as symmetry of 2. There is nothing inherently wrong with either and nothing inherently right. The 1,3,5 convention was created as a counter to neoclassicism. There is nothing scientific about it. It was created by early modernists to dismiss the past.
I agree with you. I don't think art should follow any rules, when you or I compose an image the way others suggest or follow rules made by orhers it is no longer our personal work. When I see where the rules may benefit an image I may use them, but it is very rare. I think learning to see is what the rules were for. I believe some photographers think the rules are cut and dried and should be followed at all costs.
I don't want someone to feel bad over an image, I am just trying to promote growth. You don't know what you can do till you try!
grandmas wrote:
the other thing I see is the background and text, that adds up to two.
Do you see the rhythm, symmetry, leading lines or patterns ... or anything else, other than "text" and "background"?
The other thing that comes to mind is that you continue to decry the use of rules ... yet, advocate for using odd numbers as a preferred rule over even.
I'm not a fan of blind, rote, indiscriminate use of rules. However, the use of rules are often times "cheat sheets" that precede the development of actual understanding, and can / may be helpful to budding persons, as they build / grow their understanding. Presently, you seem to present your level of understanding as a choice between "rules" of odds vs. evens (of sorts).
Your association of preference for odds vs. evens ... (imo) is just a different form of advocating for rules (those ones you like) ... moreover than fostering an understanding of movement (not the same as motion, btw), as it pertains to utilization of compositional elements, to achieve an emotive in the viewer.
Movement can range from dynamic to harmonic to static, and (imo) should be aligned to the overall goals. That (imo) is vastly greater level of understanding than simply decrying "two" ... in favor of 1 / 3 / 5 ... or decrying asymmetry as an ongoing mantra against it.
RustyBug wrote:
However, the use of rules are often times "cheat sheets" that precede the development of actual understanding, and can / may be helpful to budding persons, as they build / grow their understanding. .
I don't mind quotes, but I would like them to be accurate.
I did say this: I think you missed this, the other thing I see is the background and text, that adds up to two. The number two in art is not considered as interesting as 1, 3, or 5, unless you have a pair of something.
,,,and I also said this:
That was kind of a starter to get people away from using 2 in their images, kind of a path to grow into. 1,3,5 can be used in lots of different ways, and might require some thinking.
Anything else you think I said or didn't see, you made up, quit it, please!
You (long history) continue to advocate for a "rule" of "don't use two" (and skip over 4, via 1/3/5, etc.) with a long advocacy for the "Rule of Odds" (nearly a decade's worth, now.).
Juxtaposition (e.g.) ... umm, kinda is (base) rooted IN the compositional use of two. But, the salient point is that the use of "Rule of Odds" is still a "rule". So, when advocating / decrying against (different) rules, but advocating for a preferred rule, it is a bit antithetical to do so (imo).
The "might require some thinking" is pertinent to the use of all aspects of composition and the cadre of compositional elements in concert / orchestration with each other ... not just the "count" of objects in an image.
RustyBug wrote:
You (long history) continue to advocate for a "rule" of "don't use two" (and skip over 4, via 1/3/5, etc.) with a long advocacy for the "Rule of Odds" (nearly a decade's worth, now.).
Juxtaposition (e.g.) ... umm, kinda is (base) rooted IN the compositional use of two. But, the salient point is that the use of "Rule of Odds" is still a "rule". So, when advocating / decrying against (different) rules, but advocating for a preferred rule, it is a bit antithetical to do so (imo).
The "might require some thinking" is pertinent to the use of all aspects of composition and the cadre of compositional elements in concert / orchestration with each other ... not just the "count" of objects in an image....Show more →
You don't have a clue what I think feel or see and you make stuff up that was never said. I'm asking one more time would you please quit it.
