civilized ku # 162 ~ to just see is to be free
Friday, February 27, 2009 at 04:34PM 
Random rhythm, symmetry, harmony and organic organization • click to embiggenIt seems quite obvious to me that success in picturing the real world depends a great deal upon possessing a nearly effortless - it just comes easy / don't even have to think about it - sense/awareness of shapes, patterns, natural rhythms, and spacial / organizational relationships.
A sense/awareness that most might call an ability to compose / create interesting composition in your pictures. However, I don't include myself amongst those who think of it those terms.
For me, "composition" is a construct that demands rather intensely thoughtful work or effort in order to make the 2-dimensional surface of a print visually interesting. IMO, if you have to work at it, there are only 2 possible outcomes:
1. you'll never get it right
or
2. you'll have to use the "rules" and thereby end up with ... well ... a picture that just looks like it was made by the numbers.
(Once again) IMO, "composition" can not be taught nor can it be reduced to a dictum of rules and guidelines. To my way of thinking, it can be learned by refining your way of seeing but, if a sense of "composition" is not native to your way of seeing, you've got an uphill battle on your hands when comes to making visually interesting pictures.
To be clear, by "visually interesting" I mean pictures that are not totally dependent upon their referent to create interest. Think Jackson Pollock here. One could reasonably say that his paintings were about "nothing" except, of course, they were all about visual energy, motion, spacial and color/tonal relationships. In a very real sense he made something very interesting out of "nothing".
It is well worth noting in the context of my positing that Jackson said of his technique:
"When I am in my painting, I'm not aware of what I'm doing. It is only after a sort of 'get acquainted' period that I see what I have been about. I have no fear of making changes, destroying the image, etc., because the painting has a life of its own. I try to let it come through. It is only when I lose contact with the painting that the result is a mess. Otherwise there is pure harmony, an easy give and take, and the painting comes out well."
This notion of "harmony" and "easy give and take" meshes well with 2 of photography's stalwarts - Edward Weston and Henri Cartier-Bresson - ideas about the subject of composition. Weston thought that "composition is the strongest way of seeing" and Cartier-Bresson thought that composition is " ... an organic coordination of visual elements."
And, along the same lines, I would be remiss not to mention Sir Ansel's thought, albeit more general in scope - "There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."
What all of this means for me is that I consider myself to be truly blessed to mercifully free of the ravages of the rules of photography. Long ago, I discovered that the rules are an insurmountable obstacle to both "strong seeing" and an "organic coordination of visual elements" that are found in the real world.
And, I also discovered that, once you escape from the confines/constraints of the rules, there are pictures to be found almost everywhere you look.
Reader Comments (2)
This may seem rather amateurish but here goes...
I think there is a little more to that inherent sense of image content and that is an ability to see everything, all the little details as the camera does. For painters it's relatively easy to leave stuff out, not so the photographer. I think great images then flow not just from instinctively understanding about subject but also how to include, isolate or exclude the entirety of stuff in front of the lens. A deeper and broader sense of seeing, if you will.
If well taught (NB the caveat), then the "rules" can be a platform for appreciating and noticing all that is in front of you. It's a starting point, a line to cross. Of course, dogmatic insistence is the great barrier to progression.
Let's face it, we're not all blessed with a good sense of picturing.
Ha, this is one of the toughest things to explain to students!
Many want rules to use, a definite "right" and "wrong."
On the one hand, you should see everything in the frame when shooting, deciding what stays and why-but truly, what brings me to raise the camera to my eye in the first place comes from a more instinctual place. I'm not too sure I can teach that. Also, it can be easy to overthink and concern yourself with rules and guidlines to the point of stifling creativity.