Quote -
Sorry but using composition as absolutes is ridiculous. **Art is entirely subjective.
**

*** Although my comments are a response to Silverblade's statement, they are really directed to many many others too. Quite a lot (most?) posted images could be greatly enhanced if their creators applied compositional rules ****

I used to think that rules of composition are contrived and might limit creativity. But many years of trying things 'my own way' lead me to the conclusion that there is a very good reason for their existence. In analogy you might say that a vocabulary and rules of grammar hinder your creativity in verbal expression. But words and rules by themselves dont dictate what you say, they just give you tools to express what you say in a way that other people can get the message. The message you put out is entirely subjective and can be illuminating or pointless.
Not only that, if you know the rules, you can still chose to ignore them sometimes, to make a point. Not just a generic point of 'i'm a rebel, I dont use rules' but something relevant to the image.  You may chose to introduce an area which not harmonious, if that is part of your message/concept.
There are exceptions to rules, but using them wisely is even harder than using the rules themselves.
I suspect if you analyse your own reaction to an image, you'll find that you too 'obey' the rules. If there is a pointy element (a finger, a sword) your eyes instinctively follow it to see where its pointing too. If you position an important element right bang in the middle of the image your brain will look at one side of the divided image and tend to ignore the other. If there is a path you'll follow it to see where it leads. So its a good idea to put something important at the end of the path (what you put there is entirely subjective).
In this case there is a 'path' of no clouds and it is leading...out of the image. If that is what you want your message to be, 'run along, there's nothing to see here' than you ignored the rule for a perfect reason. If you want the viewer to linger in the image find a way to bring the eye back.
I wonder if what you find appealing in having the 'empty space' is that it breaks the symmetry of having clouds all around. I agree with that. but I dont think Artur suggested to complete the circle of clouds, he suggested to put something there which will draw your attention back into the image.
That's where birds/airplanes/comets/branches etc. become useful. They add a bit more interest and their wings/tails/tip-of-branch gently return you into the image.
I honestly understand your rebelian against imposed rules, I've been there.  You want to be independent. Me too. But real independence isnt in rejecting blindly everything the 'other side' says, it comes from evaluating it and chosing the bits which are useful for your cause and leaving those which dont serve you.
Of course, some people (not neccessarily you Silverblade) cant use the rules because they dont know them. Well worth finding out. This knowledge is very close to having a 'make art' button.

Sorry, I'll get off my soap-box now:)

"I paint that which comes from the imagination or from dreams, or from an unconscious drive. I photograph the things that I do not wish to paint, the things which already have an existence."
Man Ray, modernist painter
http://artpearl.redbubble.com/