Lately I've noticed a lot of praise for composition in the Poser Galleries. What makes a composition great?

Are there some rules that you ought to follow - and perhaps break, once you know them?

Some things I wonder about:

• A single figure in an image placed on the dead center -- or perhaps on the golden mean
• The relationship between foreground and background
• Making the image dynamic, yet balanced
• Creating an interesting path for the eye to follow
  Etc.

What do you think?

There are rules, but I have no idea what they are. I like to think I know composition when I see it, but I'm probably deluding myself. :)

Rules are made to be broken :) Someone once told me, and I believe it's true, that setting a figure in the centre of a picture makes for a very formal, portrait-style image, whereas setting them to one side gives a more natural feel. I also like to think about colour and lighting to evoke certain moods. In simplistic terms, blue and green lighting can evoke a sad mood, red for excitement or anger, etc.

I remember looking at the work of N.C. Wyeth and how the direction that characters were looking at and lines of objects in the picture would "point toward" something of interest, or move the eye around the picture.

I agree, breaking the rules can make an image interesting. But in composition, I don't think these "rules" are there to hinder your artistic expression but to guide it.

Some links:
Photo composition, very useful for Poser work too
About breaking the rules
Steven Stahlberg's essay

What I see a lot in the Poser gallery here is a figure placed in the center of a vast scene - the typical NVIAT thing. (I do it myself too I guess ) Moving the figure to either side could help, and cropping the image down too. From Photoinf.com: "The most common mistake people make when taking pictures is not filling the frame with the subject. If it's a photo of granny waving from the doorstep, let's just see granny and the door, not half the houses in the street with a small granny shaped blob in the middle."

ARGG. Sorry, but you don't "break" the rules if you don't know the rules in the first place. There are many exiting and lovely ideas that came from people who hadn't been forced into narrow patterns of composition. There are, however, a great many artists and images that failed to reach their goal through lack of basic tools. Let's not laud "breaking the rules" over all else. The goal is to make the image YOU wanted, and with luck will speak to other people as well (if it wasn't intended to reach other people, why post it in a public space?) Now that I've calmed down, I'll read Papu's links! :)

Nomuse, well said.

In terms of composition, there are several things I look at: 1. Is the figure free standing on a blank background or is there a definite sense of environment? 2. Does the figure have a blank face or is there some expressiveness? 3. Are the lighting and color schemes interesting and do they provide a sense of mood? 4. Is there a sense of depth and perspective to the way the figures are arranged in the scene or does the scene look flat? I think all a lot of other considerations such as positioning of the figure come into play when you answer these 4 questions first.

Attached Link: http://theresabrandon.com

Use unusual angles or points of view to present your image. Look for items in the image that can be used as a framing device to enhance the composition.

One of my pet peeves with some digital art is that everything is rendered to the same degree all over the picture plane. If you look at paintings by master artists you will see that how an artist has chosen to emphasize certain areas of the rendering to lead the viewer's eye. Many areas will be rendered very loosely and painterly away from the center(s) of attention.

Re: the focal point and master artists... "Many areas will be rendered very loosely and painterly away from the center(s) of attention" (Sorry Theresa, this is not aimed at you, the quote just caught MY attention.) Yes I agree with you (and I try to do similar in my own poor efforts), but sometimes I wonder: Did the master artist intentionally create that effect? Or was it just a case of concentrating on the bits that interested them, and then just filling in the background (or let the students do it) 'cos it needed to be done (yawn!)? One of the problems with digital rendering is that we have to decide deliberately which bits shouldn't be rendered "pixel/picture perfect", and then coerce the renderer into following our wishes. Which can be as time-consuming as creating the detailed parts, sometimes. I also sometimes wonder how much of this is "received appreciation". The ideas of focal points and 0perspective are relatively recent in the history of art: they arrived during the reformation (I think - I'm not 100% certain about my facts there); but if you look at ancient art (whether it be Egyptian, Indian, Cave Man, African, etc.), there's a different set of aesthetics and appreciation going on. Hmm. There's an idea - create a pic using ancient aesthetics! I could go on, but I guess I shouldn't. Please understand, this is not a rant. I like our Western aesthetics ('cos I'm used to them and they're comfortable), but it's not the ONLY way to make art... Another hmm... The "Make Art" button should include options as to which type of art to make..:-)) Cheers, Diolma

Attached Link: http://theresabrandon.com

Attached Link: http://www.wildlifeart.org/Rungius/home.html

"Composition is essential to a successful work of art. It is also one of the hardest things for an artist to mastermaybe harder than drawing or color."

There's a lot of interesting info on composition there.

Message edited on: 09/29/2004 07:52

Are there some rules that you ought to follow - and perhaps break, once you know them?
There are indeed rules to composition, and all the elements of art, and you've hit the nail on the head - the purpose of learning them is to know when you are breaking them.

- A single figure in an image placed on the dead center -- or perhaps on the golden mean
The golden mean is a mathmatically determined set of lines on your composition; some Renaissance guy got all obsessive about determining the GM's exact value. I just treat it like a range, a sort of quadrant in a comp. I think the "rule of thirds" is pretty close - someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

The relationship between foreground and background
Basically, elements in the foreground pop out, and elements in the background recede. There's more to it than that probably, but you'll have to get it from someone else. :)

Making the image dynamic, yet balanced
Creating an interesting path for the eye to follow
Etc.
Creating a path for the eye to follow is probably the most crucial element of composition, once the more egregious no-nos are dispensed with (tangents, horrible imbalance, etc.)

What do you think?
I think it's an interesting topic. I'll throw two more considerations; negative and positive space, and composition vs. design. Oh yes, I almost forgot focal points. FPs are probably the most important thing to understand about composition. You start with the idea that you want a focal point (or a focal region), and then you start considering all the things that contribute to your chosen point/region as focal point. There are tons of such things; contrast, detail, color, the aforementioned flow lines, species bias (the face of an animal demands more attention from a viewer than a normal object, and an anthropomorphic face demands still more attention, and the eyes are the focal point of any face, etc.), and more.

Rules are made to be broken :)
Rules are made to be understood before they're broken. That's like one of the axioms of art.

Someone once told me, and I believe it's true, that setting a figure in the centre of a picture makes for a very formal, portrait-style image, whereas setting them to one side gives a more natural feel.
Yes, dead-center is a bit boring. If one is working on a portrait where the subject must be in the center, make it subtly off-center; put one eye or the other at dead-center, for example.

Oh yeah, since I'm just brain-dumping here, I can't forget the all-important L-shape; L-shapes are very strong compositional tools. Think of the overall composition, not of lots of little L-shapes stuck here and there. It's a lot easier to illustrate this concept than it is to describe it. Message edited on: 09/29/2004 11:43

Message edited on: 09/29/2004 11:55

bookmark! (I'm at work I'll be back!)

Svigor, that was very informative, thank you :)

NP at all Papu, I've gleaned quite a bit from the Poser users here, so I'm happy to give back when I can. :)

Okay, I have a bit more time now, and after re-reading what I wrote I think a couple of points need expansion.

Keep in mind it's been more than a few years since art school, so I'm almost sure to be less than precise with my terminology here.

Focal point (or focal area):
this is one of those rare hard rules in art; any composition must have a focal point. If you don't consciously decide where your FP will be, it's still there, but it's decided by happenstance. Thus, it's always best to be deliberate about FPs.

Basically, you want to frame everything in terms of your focal point if you want to achieve solid composition. Here are some considerations in how to do this:

Design/flow: when possible, try to pose your figures and objects, and arrange your lines, so that they point towards the FP, or contribute to the flow of the composition, or both. For example, when a figure's forearm can be pointed towards the FP, and you lose nothing by doing so, and especially when you contribute to the flow as well, then go for it.

A note on flow; think in circles here. One ideal flow is a continuous circle around the area of the golden mean (or "rule of thirds"), with the FP somewhere on that circle. One crucial idea in flow is to avoid leading the viewer's eye off-canvas.

Contrast: placing the area of highest contrast (whether the contrast is one of value (light/dark), color, detail (high vs. low) strategically around or near or leading to the FP is an ideal way to solidify its primacy.

Other Stuff
The rule of thirds: this is just a sort of shorthand for the golden mean. Divide your canvas horizontally and vertically into thirds; the lines, and especially the intersections, are great places to put your FP (and important elements in general).

Tangents: tangents are a big no-no. A tangent is an element that just barely touches something (like another element or the edge of the canvas), but doesn't overlap. Tangents tend to ruin the illusion of depth, create confusion in the viewer, and contribute to poor composition in general.

edit: tangents are elements that touch and are at different depths - it's okay to have things touching, if that's what you intend.

Along similar lines, there are certain framing issues. Don't cut figures off (with the edge of your canvas) at the knees, elbows, or in general at joints. Place a bit of one side of the joint or another into the composition.

More on the L-Shape, or rather shapes in general. It helps a LOT if you can start to think of your compositions in different terms, through different "lenses" if you will. It's a lot like seeing your work with a different pair of eyes, and you shift constantly to evaluate them in different terms as you go. Look at your comp and just see and think in terms of value (light/dark). Then do the same for lines, then color, then design, etc. To get this all back to shapes - if you learn to look at your comps this way, you'll start to see each element (line, value, color) as shapes. Work with these shapes (in the broad sense, the overall comp, not in the nitpicking sense), and try to be conscious of them, because your viewers will be impacted by them (probably unconsciously).
Protip: to help you see your comps as comps, try looking at them without focusing your eyes (focusing in front of or behind the comp). If you find that difficult, just squint. You'll find by relaxing your eyes or squinting when evaluating a comp, you can get a very good impression of the broad strokes (in terms of value, color, etc.)
Oh yeah, one last tidbit; long shots (camera further from subject) distance the viewer from the subject mentally (they may for example suggest loneliness); close-ups do the opposite. Upshots (camera pointed at subject from below) place the viewer in an inferior mental position to the subject (my guess is it's the whole child/parent thing, but that's just my guess) and suggest power and dominance; and downshots do the opposite.

Message edited on: 09/29/2004 15:33

Message edited on: 09/29/2004 15:40

Yes, thanks Svigor, I'm glad I bookmarked this thread. :) If I look at some of my work, I can see places where I've followed the rules, and places where I haven't; in both cases, without knowing what the rules were. I just did what I thought worked at the time. In a couple of instances I've copied the look and feel of another artist's work in an attempt to find out what makes it tick. So here's the chicken and egg question. Do artists who know them follow these rules consciously, or are the rules just an attempt to formulate what an artist does instinctively? No need to attempt an answer, by the way. I strongly suspect there isn't one; or, more precisely, there are two diametrically opposed answers which are both true. :) I remember once playing one of my musical compositions to someone with training. "You can't resolve that chord like that", he said, "it's against the rules of harmony." So what? I did it, and it worked for me. In my opinion, being an artist is about trusting your own senses to report the truth of what you're doing.

*If I look at some of my work, I can see places where I've followed the rules, and places where I haven't; in both cases, without knowing what the rules were. I just did what I thought worked at the time.*That's precisely why knowing the rules is important. It isn't that you have to follow them, but rather to know how and when to break them, and that you are breaking them.

So here's the chicken and egg question. Do artists who know them follow these rules consciously, or are the rules just an attempt to formulate what an artist does instinctively?

No need to attempt an answer, by the way. I strongly suspect there isn't one; or, more precisely, there are two diametrically opposed answers which are both true. :)

You've pretty much answered your own question here (I think). The answer to both questions is...yes, sort of. It isn't as simple as the "it's all good" mentality, however. The human psyche is NOT infinitely plastic or abstract, it has a lot of very consistent rules, and it determines the rules of art. The problem is that no one understands the human psyche fully (or even comes close), so we have many grey areas (actually more grey areas than not).

I remember once playing one of my musical compositions to someone with training. "You can't resolve that chord like that", he said, "it's against the rules of harmony." So what? I did it, and it worked for me. In my opinion, being an artist is about trusting your own senses to report the truth of what you're doing.

I don't really have a clue what being an artist is about - at least in terms that can be expressed with words. I remember hearing once that (paraphrasing) art prepares the viewer for death. I don't go in for a lot of the high-flying crap that gets thrown about concerning art, but that definitely resonated with me. I have a much more instrumental view of art (my basic philosophy of life is scientific/Darwinian) than most; my background is graphic design, not fine arts, so I'm sure that has a lot to do with it.

I'm just a beginner when it comes to art theory in practical matters, and pretty much clueless as to the more high-falutin' end of these things.

To wend my way back to your comment about trusting one's senses, I agree to a great extent. On the other hand, one's senses are informed by many experiences, ideas, temperaments, etc., ad infinitum.

Btw, your friend was probably wrong when he said "can't." I know nothing of music, but I know enough about art to know that intentionally breaking the rules doesn't equal "can't." Breaking the rules can often be the way to go.

Message edited on: 09/30/2004 15:07

"You can't resolve that chord like that", he said, "it's against the rules of harmony." Hmm. Try telling that to an Indian sitar-player (eg Ravi Shankar and he's one of the more accessible ones). Who has only studied the instrument and the music for 40-odd years and still manages to produce music that sounds "odd" to Western senses. Or to Stockhausen...(excuse spelling..) Humankind can find all sorts of things aesthetically pleasing, depending on how they're brought up and what inflences they've been subjected to. Personally, I find a lot of "high art" thoroughly boring, not to say occasionally objectionable. And that feeling is multiplied when I look at "Modern Art" (as exemplified by some of the stuff in the Tate Modern etc.). But that's just me. I DO have this sneaking suspicion that some people like that sort of stuff just because it's highly saleable and/or has a high "snobbery" value - but, again, that's just my own opinion. I have no intention of trying to argue case because it can't be proven one way or the other. I DO like J.W Turner though. And Michealangelo.. and Leonardo da Vinci... and El Greco.... and Dali........ (oh - and the Eagles and Pink Floyd and Tchaikovsky and Beethoven - and Ravi Shankar:-)) Just to name a very few.. And I've got to stop now 'cos otherwise this post will exceed the golden mean..:-)) Cheers, Diolma

Composition is one of the first things I look at when I'm studying an image. Maybe my art background makes me do this but for me, it makes or breaks a picture. I like imaginative viewpoints which emphasise the subject matter of the picture, and lighting which tells a story, too. Sometimes a centrally placed figure is perfect for a scene as long as you have other stuff which leads the eye towards it. Now, you may argue that this doesn't happen in the real world, life being messy and all, but actually, it does. Or rather, that's how we perceive it. A lot of research has been undertaken on the science of "seeing", and it seems to be the case that we mentally "frame" images in a way that an artist would say is "composed". Our eyes track movement and colour in a particular way, and our angle of focus is relatively narrow, so that the things we are looking at tend to occupy a significant portion of the viewing frame. It's very similar to the way we hear, in that we seem to be able to discriminate between what we want to hear, versus the ambient noise. Our brains are very good at fine tuning the world's input, and that's what the artist strives to replicate, or play around with. An artist tries to replicate this, or to subvert it in a controlled way, by monkeying around with the POV, perspective and lighting. Vision, like scent and sound, works at a very basic level in our psyche, so it's possible to have all kinds of fun if you know what you're doing. IMO, the best way to start down the road to effective composition is to view images in a dynamic way. Don't just say, "Hey, that's nice", ask yourself why you like it, and what is it about the POV or whatever that grabs your attention. Copy the old masters, copy the digital artists you respect, read books on perspective (I can recommend Perspective For Artists by Rex Vicat Cole), visit museums and study as many "classic" paintings and photography as possible.

I agree with everything that SamTherapy said. In the "Western" world. But that still doesn't explain aesthetics. Primitive tribes, ancient civilisations etc, must have had a very different set of aesthetic principles to the ones I (and probably you) are brought up to believe in. Not saying it's wrong, just saying that sometimes "thinking outside the box" is worth it. (Not often, but sometimes..) OTOH: If you want to appeal to a mass market, then (and this is NOT meant derogatively), then yes. Study the old masters. Learn the techniques, like the "Golden Mean", and "leading the eye". Nothing wrong in that at all. In fact I'm trying to do it myself (with minor success). OK. As an apology the above doesn't work too well, but (I think) my heart's in the right place..:-)) Cheers, Diolma

Diolma: aesthetics aren't wholly learned values, not by a long shot. That was my point above re the human psyche. It's nature AND nurture, as with most things human. A lot of what we find pleasing to the eye is hard-wired into our biology. As for non-western influences, they're fine once one puts them into context; they're all (objectively and historically) inferior to the western traditions (that applies to art, music, literature, etc.). I came back to this thread to point out another important tip that I forgot to mention; step back from your composition from time to time to evaluate it. When you see the archetypical artiste standing back from his canvas, peering at his work, he isn't just posing for effect. Standing back from a composition helps one see the whole rather than the parts, which is vital in evaluating work in terms of composition. (this one is sort of the sister to the squint technique) I don't know if just zooming out the camera has an identical effect, try both and see I guess.

"As for non-western influences, they're fine once one puts them into context; they're all (objectively and historically) inferior to the western traditions (that applies to art, music, literature, etc.)." I'm sorry, Svigor, but I just can't agree with that sentiment. I don't know why, and can't explain myself properly, but to me it seems to be a somewhat arrogant attitude. You seem to be suggesting that cultures other than the Western ones are inferior. I just don't agree. Personally I PREFER the Western idiom. It's what I was brought up with. And if you want to impress the majority of the (buying) public, then Western influences rule. But, as you stated, it's nature AND nurture. And if you are nurtured in a different culture, your view of nature becomes slanted by the art that's in that culture. None are superior or inferior. Just different. I can't make head nor tail of Australian Aborigine art, but that doesn't make the art inferior, nor the tradition behind it. It just makes ME inferior, for not understanding it. But I suspect you and I are just going to have to agree to differ. Anyway, I'll shut up now. Cheers, Diolma

No problem, we don't have to agree for me to be right. ;) As for arrogance - being objective isn't arrogant. Lording the aforementioned superiority over non-western traditions would be arrogant. As for cultures, well, you're expanding the idea beyond the frame I gave it, but yes, I do think western cultures are, or at least have been for nearly an eon, superior to non-western cultures in virtually every area. I disagree with the "none is superior" "each is just different" meme. Take perspective as an example. Western traditions recognized and implemented it; non-western traditions didn't until the west blazed the trail. Realism is another example. "I can't make head nor tail of Australian Aborigine art, but that doesn't make the art inferior, nor the tradition behind it. It just makes ME inferior, for not understanding it." Rubens, Vermeer, and Rembrandt are superior to Australian aboriginal art, just as Bach and Orff are superior to Amazonian tribal music. "But I suspect you and I are just going to have to agree to differ. Anyway, I'll shut up now." It's no problem; I come off as a know-it-all, I know. As I said before I certainly don't know a lot about art, I just have a very minimal education in the basics. What I do know is, there's no shame in calling a symphony superior to banging on drums, just as there's no shame in calling a Boeing superior to a paper airplane. Of course, context is king - the paper airplane is no doubt superior at flying around my living room - but I don't see the point of neutering the word "superior" vis-a-vis art or culture just to spare people's egos. No offense meant or taken. :)

An example which caught my eye today: The video/DVD for Kill Bill Vol. 1 (the yellow one) has the sword diagonally away from Uma Thurman. The poster for the video in the shop has her royaying her wrist 180 degrees, so that the sword passes in front of her leg. Why the difference? Which is better? Well, a part of the difference is that a DVD cover has different proportions to a poster, and has more lettering than just the movie title.