data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9513a/9513a7a27c58abfd17f945752702dd675cbd5761" alt="1044757-9180968-thumbnail.jpg 1044757-9180968-thumbnail.jpg"
Kitchen chairs ~ Long Lake, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenAs I move on to notions and ideas about how to make pictures of what you see, it is imperative to restate that, IMO, even though how a picture is "composed" is rather important, there are no rules of composition. And, furthermore, to repeat Edward Weston's dictum .... To compose a subject well means no more than to see and present it in the strongest manner possible.
Now, I am certain, beyond all doubt, that there are many who don't have a clue as to how to "compose in the strongest manner possible". I would go one step further and state that, for that matter, most don't even have a clue about what "the strongest manner possible" even means. And, in fact, many of those who not only know what it means but also how to do it, don't have a clue about to how explain how they do it.
That said, the best "explanation" of the process of composing in the strongest manner possible that I have come across is that offered by Henry Wessel:
You're suddenly seeing the coherence and the interconnectedness of everything, left to right, top to bottom, front to back. It's all connected, and, somehow, it's all in balance. And that's, of course, when you go, 'Yes!'.
Quite obviously, some of the key words in Wessel's statement are, "coherence", "interconnectedness", "balance", and (here's the kicker) "somehow". Yep, as fuzzy as it may sound, "somehow" it all comes together. Except that I don't think that the somehow of how all it comes together is really all that fuzzy ...
I think that the mechanics of how it all comes together is quite universal in the picture making world - while making pictures and looking through the camera's eye, a picture maker takes a step or two to the right, a step or two to the left, a step or two forward, a step or two backward, stands up straighter, slouches a little lower, or, for that matter, any combination of the preceding. Then, when it all "feels" right, you go, "yes", and then you press the shutter release.
IMO, to be perfectly clear - and this not too fine a point to understand - the real fuzzy part of Wessel's statement is in the word "balance" - one person's "balance" is another person's koyaanisqatsi. And, when it comes to making pictures that are good/interesting, the word balance is relative inasmuch as balance is attained when the balance helps sell the idea, noted and connoted, that is the picture maker's intent.
Have no doubt about it, intent is everything. Intent is the engine that drives the picturing endeavor. Intent determines not only what one pictures but also how one pictures. If a picture maker's intent is to sell "serenity/simplicity" then you can be reasonably certain that what and how he/she pictures will be quite different from what and how a picture maker intent on selling "chaos/complexity" goes about his/her picture making business. The "balance" exhibited in their respective pictures will undoubtedly be different.
Knowing, understanding, developing, and pursuing one's intent is what helps "composition" become (as Weston stated) "a personal thing, to be developed along with technique, as a personal way of seeing" (my emphasis).
As I progress in this on seeing endeavor, I know that it is disappointing to some that I do not "dissected" one aspect of my picturing MO or and another. I am deliberately avoiding doing so because, as this entry states and implies, the how of what I do is very idiosyncratic, aka: personal (not in the "private" sense of the word). Consequently, it is my belief that one should be much more concerned with developing their very own idiosyncrasy than they are in trying to understand mine.
Not to mention the fact that ....
It is not how I do my work, but what my work is when it is done, that should decide its claim to admiration and respect. - A. H. Wall