IMO, after you cut through all the blather, re: how to make a good picture, it all comes down one simple fact (but not necessarily so simple to execute) ..... most "successful" pictures all have one thing in common. That one thing is a sophisticated arrangement of all of the elements contained within and up to the edges of the frame.
By elements, I mean not just the obvious visual depicted referent(s) but rather all of the bits and pieces of lines, shapes, form, colors, tonal values and the like. While these elements are visible, in a very real sense, when they all work together, they become invisible, acting like a subliminal language / message which draws a viewer into a picture.
In fact, in many cases, a well executed arrangement of "invisible" pictorial elements is often enough to elevate a picture of seemingly "nothing" into the realm of a very good picture. Match a well executed arrangement with a picture of "something" and you might have an extremely good picture indeed. However, it's also worth mentioning that, a picture without a well executed arrangement can be "saved by the depiction of an extraordinary referent.
IMO (again), there are no rules (other than a few simplistic ones which force all manner of referents into the same repetitive mold) for constructing sophisticated / visually pleasing arrangements. Or, for that matter, displeasing / discordant arrangements depending on the picture makers intent for the picture. The simple fact of the matter is that creating a good arrangement is a make-it-up-as-you-go endeavor, an act of on-the-spot improvisation. Or, as they say in the military, the field expediency method - there's the by-the-book way to do it (rules) and then there's figuring out how to get done under field conditions. That is, in the heat of battle.
And, in a sense, making pictures with sophisticated arrangements is a battle of sorts. A picture maker has to wrestle the visual / "invisible" elements found in the real world into a visual representation of that world with some form of a coherent / visually arresting arrangement. And - here's where I always get into trouble - some people are instinctually much better at this than others (those who struggle trying to make a picture by the book / rules).
I am not so certain that the visual "language" needed to make a very good picture can be taught / learned, other than some simple phrases which can serve in a pinch. IMO and experience, either you have it or you don't.
Now, before you get your knickers in a twist, let me explain .... those who instinctually "have it" must learn to recognize "it" and foster / understand "it" - although not to the point of losing the "magic" of "it" - and just let it flow in the picture making moment. Those who don't instinctually "have it" can, through the study of "it", develop a certain sense of "it" and attempt use "it" in their picture making. However, their biggest obstacle in the implementation of using "it" is that they let too much thought / thinking get in the way of their picture making ... kind of like the game of golf wherein having too many swing thoughts during the course of swinging a club is the surest way to screw up your swing.
All of that written, I would suggest that "having it" helps immensely in the cause of good picture making. Although, that does not mean that "having it" means every picture made is a good / successful to their intent picture. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Nor does not "having it" mean that one is doomed to never make a good picture. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
IMO, it's just that those who "have it" have a better batting average than those who don't.
Monday, July 20, 2015 at 05:19PM 
