civilized ku # 173 ~ good composition can happen when you are sweeping the floor
Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 10:50AM 
Sweeping whimsy • click to embiggenOver the years I have received quite a few comments - email, blog comments, photo forum comments, and actual spoken words - regarding my "mastery" of the square format. I have taken this to mean that those observers of my square pictures find the "composition" found in my picture to be rather pleasing / compelling / nice - they like the way things are arranged in the frame.
I simply do not know how to reply to such comments because, as weird as it might sound, I really feel only partially responsible for the composition found in my pictures. In fact, it's accurate to say that I feel that I exercise very little control over the composition - that is to say, how things are arranged within the square frame.
The reason for this is quite simple - there is some sort of unthought known / preternatural awareness of / sensitivity to how things are arranged or organized in space at work in my head - especially so within the confines of defined space. Like furniture in a room or type on a page or type with pictures on a page or things in a camera viewfinder / on a groundglass screen.
I can not explain this perception other than to say that when I see/sense a pleasing arrangement - to my eye and sensibilities - of things, it stops my eyes (or is it my mind's eye?) dead in their tracks like the proverbial sharp stick in the eye. This perception does not need to be turned on. As a matter of fact, I don't think that I could turn it off even if I tried.
It is also interesting to note that this perception works in both an active and a passive manner. Active as in when I am designing an ad, brochure, logo, and the like as well as when I am making a commercial picture - deliberately arranging things/ people within the frame and framework of my chosen POV.
However, when to comes to my square pictures as seen here on The Landscapist, the perception is very passive. I see it. I turn the camera on. I picture it. End of story.
I do not "work" the subject other than an occasional and almost always subtle shift in my camera POV. I just picture what my eyes have already seen. The biggest decision I have to make is what stays inside the square frame which most times comes down to what just simply looks and feels right.
I mention all of this because, for me, "composition" just seems to come "naturally". I couldn't teach it to anyone no matter how hard I tried. I don't follow any rules other than those that I have either made up for myself or that I instinctively "sense".
This composition modus operandi is shared with quite few other artists, to include photographers, with whom I am familiar. They, like me, just don't seem to work all that hard at picturing the "right" arrangement.
IMO, this is why so many believe that composition can not be taught although, up to point, it probably can be learned. In fact, this why there are "rules" so that those who don't/can't "feel it" can have an actual guide to reasonably good composition, albeit most often rather "strained" or "stilted" . And, perhaps over time, some will discover how to "bend" the rules in order to develop a sense of how things should be arranged that passes as a somewhat personal manner of seeing.
As Edward Weston' stated:
Composition is the strongest way of seeing.
Does the arrangement of things come naturally to you or do you have to work at it?
And, answer me this if you can - when my wife wants to yank my chain, photography-wise, why is her favorite epithet of choice always, "Looks like the slavish adherence to the Rule of Thirds to me."?
Reader Comments (6)
All my best stuff seems to be compositions that just happened. Sometimes it feels a bit embarrising how little effort good pictures can take.
I think a positive response to the world around you has to be an instinctive thing, a result of habituation. Overly worked pictures start to look just that.
Oh, BTW, I think rule of thirds is a rule for the innumerate as well as unartictic. Should be three-fifths (much closer to the golden ratio) ;-)
I wish i could see something as work stoppingly beautiful as that pile of stuff on the kitchen floor.
Well said. I usually just say that I wave the camera around until the picture feels good. I'm so glad I never had to learn any rules, thirds or otherwise. If you have to think about it I'm not sure you can do it.
Here's how I experience it: I look for the "right" composition with joy. Does that make sense? It is not something I have to work at but I know when I've found it. The search and the finding are really part of one process. I verbalize it in my head as "Where's the music in this picture, what perspective makes it "sing?" Works for me.
I went into photography in my teens with no real art enthusiasm or understanding, and my intentions gradually became artistic at the same time as I taught myself about art in general.
This means that I started out with no sense of composition at all (bunged everything smack bang in the centre of the frame), eventually reaching the point today where I feel as though I compose entirely intuitively. One thing that actually freed my compositions was learning about the 'rules'. For example, the 'rule of thirds' broke my habit of putting everything in the middle, and also taught me that there was such a thing as the rule of thirds which I could then break.
Generalising this a bit, it seems that someone with no training at all will subconsiously follow the 'rules' (or even a very restricted subset of them), and sometimes they will need to be told what the rules are in order to realise that they are actually following them in the first place.
Mark, my fascination with your work is grounded in the way your images are balanced. It seems perfectly natural to me, it is similar to the way I think about balance. I don't know how you "compose", but I do it in terms of balance, proportion, forces and counter-forces, and I do it not really consciously. It's a similar thing as what happens when I play the game of Go.
I have no idea how well I play Go. I have learned the rules, I have played with a few people and I have won everything. I am quite certain that I would lose spectacularly against any "real" Go player, but playing against beginners with equal experience, I tend to win spectacularly.
I attribute this to the way I play: It is not an intellectual approach, I do not play in terms of moves planned in advance, I play in terms of forces, fields, weights, balance, and that seems to work well with this game, at least to a certain degree, at least against beginners.
For me, photographic composition works just the same way, and regardless of how you compose your images, they "feel good" to me, feel perfectly balanced, resolve all forces.