The "Paintings that Break Conventional Composition But Still Work" Thread

[Andrew Sonea]

Here's a Frederick Remington that has a bullseye centered focal point as well as including a tangent between the head and horizon line:




Also I found a painting by Schiele that doesn't really have a focal point at first (everything is treated equally across the canvas). Looking at it longer I guess the four windows in the center are the focal point, but there is nothing leading the eye there:

[Book Guru]

This one is my favorite that fits the subject:

Degas' Place de la Concorde

[JeffX99]

ANd here's another bull's eye...and square with horizon cutting image in half. This was at the Edgar Payne show...original is about 4' square (sorry about the small image size - but you get the idea):

[bcarman]

No, the rules are held to be sacrosanct by the mediocrities, not the masters. Mediocrities are always at the level of trying to master the "conventions" of a form, because they can't do "inventions." And they at least want to be able to create standard-level work.

You might say the Degas has no obvious focal point, which would fall under #4 on Andrew's list in the first post.

There's also a convention that one shouldn't cut off a limb at the edge of canvas where, at first glance, it would look as if the limb were severed, rather than merely off-screen. Generally this refers to a bisection of the forearm at the canvas edge, where the wrist and hand are all that is missing.

Another convention that hasn't been touched upon is pointing the eye toward the focal center. I don't remember if that's one covered by Armand/Dpaint on his blog Art and Influence, which I assume was the impetus for this thread.

Never heard or taught the limb thing. That's new to me.

Never really heard or taught the focal point being in the center as a no no either, only having an isolated or single thing in the center.

And the focal point of this piece has always been blue shawl girl for me.

I'll have to check out Armand's blog post. I didn't realize the rules were posted there.

[Ccs]

This is a really interesting thread. I think the great things about these paintings is that while they buck certain compositional conventions meant to lead to eye successfully around the image, all the artists seem to know HOW to break the rules and have an intention behind their choices. They also use the principles of design well (which, as Jason Manley states, are Rhythm, Emphasis, Variety, Economy, Repetition, Balance, Movement & Continuity, and Unity). They distort those principles where needed.

[Chris Bennett]

Or, those rules are nonsense anyway. A kind of art urban myth that has been propagated by ignorance.
By the way Ccs, that list of 'principles' is a list of terms, not principles.
Not having a dig or anything - just pointing something out in the cause of general enlightenment.

[Leo Ki]

How mere visual habits become divine rules
Another explanation could be that there exist a thousand subconscious rules but we're aware of only a dozen of them. When someone stumbles on a hidden one, things work but we don't know why
Comic panels seem to enjoy rule breaking even more because they have a strong stream of story to rapid-raft on.

[bcarman]

Please remember that rules do not exist for every situation. Dynamic composition is much different than calm or iconic. Some conventions prefer central placement and symmetrical design.

If we are to develop a list of no nos then there has to be a context.

Maybe there is no rules. All those artists just painted what they wanted to paint. All these words composition rules ,focal point rules, colour rules etc used by art critics and teacher to explain the intangible.

[Chris Bennett]

But there are principles.
You should always paint what you want to paint.
And understanding the principles gives you the means to do that fluently.

[Chris Bennett]

Here's some gooduns: Raimonds Staprans

[bcarman]

Maybe there is no rules. All those artists just painted what they wanted to paint. All these words composition rules ,focal point rules, colour rules etc used by art critics and teacher to explain the intangible.

If it's intangible then what are we trying to learn? Why take any advice to try and get better?

[JeffX99]

Maybe there is no rules. All those artists just painted what they wanted to paint. All these words composition rules ,focal point rules, colour rules etc used by art critics and teacher to explain the intangible.

Certainly some of the "rules" or terms are devloped to discuss and communicate the ideas between us. I believe these "rules" of composition are born out of the common human experience or psyche that dictates certain things are pleasant, exciting, frightening, etc. to us. In other words, certain principles of design or aesthetic exist because of our very nature - upright, bilateral creatures with our dominant sensory systems up at the top and facing mostly forward, etc.

I always enjoy thinking about what types of aesthetics or principles of design strange alien races may develop....it's bound to be very different. So in that sense these principles are relatively universal to us as humans...yet they cannot be universal truths.

[Raoul Duke]

Well composition rules and such are just there to help. They are a good thing to be aware of but don't get too self conscious about them. It's better to take your risks then it is to play it safe at all costs. Like tangents are supposed to be such a big taboo, but look at Frank Stockton. This image is loaded with tangents and it's all the better for it.

[RangerX]

This one is my favorite that fits the subject:

Degas' Place de la Concorde

actually this one is right the main subject is in the golden mean

[dose]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. I think this is a great thread, but I'd like to raise a question- are all of these really "working" the way we think they are?

IMHO several of them would be improved if they didn't break the rule or principle we are talking about. Really, we should consider that it's "working" if the piece would be fundamentally different if changed. Several with strange cropping would be improved if they were cropped a little better. Wouldn't the Bongart (not-Schmidt) be better with just a little more space at the bottom and still convey the same idea? Wouldn't the Payne painting be a little better with a slice more sky above the hills, but still have the same dramatic effect of the large shape of water?

To me, the ones that are working would be a different painting altogether if we changed the general composition- i.e. the Geddes picture where the central mass of figures would take on some different narrative significance if placed elsewhere on the canvas, or the Hale piece where the head is cut off on the right- the cropping of the head adds to the quirkiness of the character and the overall composition- we can't quite see all of this weird guy (it also helps put him in motion, I think). The Morandi pieces are also all wonderful in this sense- the bunching in the middle forces some narrative connotation to the inanimate objects, which would change dramatically if placed elsewhere (similar to the Geddes, but in a more sophisticated manner). He is also playing with graphic balance in really interesting ways (which is a whole other topic)

I think we have to be careful not to give out passes to people because of their name or because the rest of the technique is impressive enough that we will gloss over some pretty big mistakes.

(Disclaimer: a lot of these paintings are actually experiments in composition, and in this sense I love them- but that doesn't mean they were all successful!).

[kev ferrara]

Dose,

I was going to write something similar. I think we see banal compositions so often that any risk taking will be exciting enough to register as good.

But I would say the problem is not the rule breaking in the examples posted which do not quite work. The problem is that the rest of the composition doesn't take up the slack.

Also, it would be very deep going to discuss what exactly is meant by a composition that "works." Works as what? is the first question I'd ask, because if we're just talking about the composition working as a communication, then anything goes.

[Chris Bennett]

Works as what? is the first question I'd ask...

Personally speaking, I'd say 'as resolution'.
Of what, is immaterial. Because when we recognise it, we know it.

[Wooly ESS]

I think this is a great discussion.

Museums, galleries, art shows, etc are filled to briming with works that follow all the rules of composition, to the point where individual pieces are lost in obscurity. Someone earlier used the term "banality". The work that stands out from the crowd may be the one that violates a rule or two. I would argue that standing out in a crowd is one definition of "it works", especially if that's what you want. What artist doesn't want their work to stand out?

The trick is to know how to break a rule or two and get away with it. That would be the mark of a master, in my opinion.

[OldJake666]

I think this piece by Beardsley might fit the bill. There is no obvious focal point and for the most part the torsos directly bisect the center of the page.

[kev ferrara]

Personally speaking, I'd say 'as resolution'.
Of what, is immaterial. Because when we recognise it, we know it.

Well, I would disagree that a communication is necessarily resolved simply by virtue of seeming to be resolved. I've read enough nonsensical "complete" sentences and paragraphs to be suspicious of punctuation, grammar and form as indicative that a self contained thought referencing a common reality has just occurred. Punctuation, grammar, form, resolution.... all that is nothing more than a hope that the preceding communication actually made sense. Just like the presence of a jar doesn't necessarily mean it contains anything.

If you want to take visual resolution as the purpose of the conventions we are discussing, we must stipulate the kind of pictures that might be resolved by them. And I would think we are talking about "realistic" pictures that attempt to portray a convincing reality without the distraction of anomalous graphic events which might disturb the suspension of disbelief in the illusion of a scenario presented.

So, for instance, the Frank Stockton drawing has two different scenes/perspectives joined. That would be the breaking of a convention. The Beardsley is flat decoration, also without perspective or an illusion of realism. (It refers to realism, but it does give the illusion of it.) Yet both pictures are resolved.

[Raoul Duke]

Yes, if you are going to break a rule in composition, there had better be a good reason behind it and you had better back it up with context. You can't have an exciting pose of Batman spin kicking a robot in a baron, lonely composition where three quarters is devoted to negative space. But if it's Batman watching over the city then 75% negative space would be rational. But once again there is always an exception to the rule.

[Chris Bennett]

Kev.
Resolution would mean that whatever the ingredients of the work are, regardless of their apparent stylistic antagonism when taken seperately, they have been brought into accord by rules forged by conflict arising out of their inclusion.

In other words.
The solution of a problem is the carrier wave of the drama.
In the plastic arts the resolution sits on top. Unlike the dramatic arts, it's the first thing we see.
And therefore we always read the meaning backwards.

[kev ferrara]

Kev.
Resolution would mean that whatever the ingredients of the work are, regardless of their apparent stylistic antagonism when taken seperately, they have been brought into accord by rules forged by conflict arising out of their inclusion.

Yes, but those negotiated rules don't necessarily entail meaning or a communication worth making. Just visual harmony. Which is no more necessarily meaningful than saying that 3+1 = 2+2.

In other words.
The solution of a problem is the carrier wave of the drama.

You are assuming here both that the picture to be resolved is dramatic and that the drama is functional. But whether either is or is not is a different matter than whether the visual aspect feels resolved. Again, resolution doesn't necessarily entail meaningfulness, let alone dramatic coherence. Merely the hope of it, just like the period ending this sentence can't speak for the quality of the sentence that precedes it.

In the plastic arts the resolution sits on top. Unlike the dramatic arts, it's the first thing we see.
And therefore we always read the meaning backwards.

You know I know this, Chris.

[Chris Bennett]

Yes, but those negotiated rules don't necessarily entail meaning or a communication worth making. Just visual harmony. Which is no more necessarily meaningful than saying that 3+1 = 2+2.

But visual harmony is a sensuous expression of mathematical harmony. And of course, music is a vivid example of this. The Beach Boy's 'Good Vibrations' could be expressed as a mathematical equation - and a Beethoven string quartet is often read straight from the score by certain musicians for fun. The harmony of architecture can be expressed on a CAD machine but only sensuously experienced standing in front of it.
What I am saying, therefore, is that the drama is the sensuous experience.


You are assuming here both that the picture to be resolved is dramatic and that the drama is functional. But whether either is or is not is a different matter than whether the visual aspect feels resolved. Again, resolution doesn't necessarily entail meaningfulness, let alone dramatic coherence. Merely the hope of it, just like the period ending this sentence can't speak for the quality of the sentence that precedes it.

I think we have to sharpen up what we understand by ‘meaningful’ so as to not to be talking at cross purposes.
3+1 = 2+2 is meaningful.
And so is:
‘A man ignores the cry for help of a man who is having an affair with his wife’.
The difference is that the latter is sensuously meaningful to our lives and the other is not.
The meaningfulness of the harmony of abstraction is made sensuous in the plastic arts in architecture. As expressions of our cradle, or original home, it is, when great, an expression of the transcendence of birth. A stasis.
The meaningfulness of the harmony of a dramatic picture is the resolution of components that allude to life. That is, conflict embodied by graphic antagonisms that carry illusionist allusions caught in its grip. A drama.

Both meaningfulness and sensuous meaningfulness are expressions of resolution per se.

You know I know this, Chris.

I know you know I know Kev.

[kev ferrara]

Chris,

Mathematical equations are desensualized. So I can't agree with you that Good Vibrations can be reduced to math without serious loss in the compression. Furthermore not all visuals harmonize because of purely graphic reasons. Therefore, obviously I don't agree that all visual harmony is in some way mathematical.

There is a difference between a statement making sense and a statement being meaningful. I fall in line with the American Pragmatists' view of meaning, as only arising from an understanding of the consequences of an act. 3+1=2+2, while sensible as a statement, has no consequences as a statement. Therefore, no meaning. Yet, it is resolved as a statement.

If your argument is that the sensual experience of art is inherently dramatic, I think you know that I know that you know that I know that.

The meaningfulness of the harmony of abstraction is made sensuous in the plastic arts in architecture. As expressions of our cradle, or original home, it is, when great, an expression of the transcendence of birth.

This fact reminds me of an opinion.

The meaningfulness of the harmony of a dramatic picture is the resolution of components that allude to life. That is, conflict embodied by graphic antagonisms that carry illusionist allusions caught in its grip.

The occlusion of incipient diametricality diverges from the protracted expectation of seemingly disparate impetuousness in any given reference frame that is ignored through circumscription.

[bcarman]

Warning: Do not read the last sentence from Kev out loud. It could result in serious tongue damage.

[dpaint]

Warning: Do not read the last sentence from Kev out loud. It could result in serious tongue damage.

Thats what I like about Kev; he eschews obfuscation. He is the epitome of verbal pulchritude.

[Chris Bennett]

Chris: The meaningfulness of the harmony of a dramatic picture is the resolution of components that allude to life. That is, conflict embodied by graphic antagonisms that carry illusionist allusions caught in its grip.

Kev: The occlusion of incipient diametricality diverges from the protracted expectation of seemingly disparate impetuousness in any given reference frame that is ignored through circumscription.

Okay, okay; I can see I’m gonna have to unpack that statement of mine a little…

Let’s say ‘sensual meaningfulness’ = a grouping of sensuous events that make sense.
So, a man shooting himself in the foot does not make sense and dosesn’t mean anything.
But a conscientious objector shooting himself in the foot to avoid the draft does make sense and does mean something, pointing as it does to a motive.
So meaningfulness always has to make sense in some way or another.
So whether meaningfulness is sensual (having meaning emotionally relevant to the day-to-day life of us humans) or not, is irrelevant to the fact that it always has to make sense to qualify as being meaningful in some way.

Harmony, devoid of sensual meaning (emotional relevance) is meaningful in terms of it making sense within its own conditions, whether they are relevant to human emotion or not. 3+1 = 2+2.

Plastic harmony (say, architecture) is only harmony because of the way it appeals to the senses of the sentient creatures who build it. It is not self evident as in mathematics. (which is why mathematics is used in the CETI broadcasts) It is a condition evoked within humans only by their sensuous reading of it. The harmony is witnessed as a bunch of graphic antagonisms that relate to our survival wiring and resolve themselves into a graphic peacefulness. Since this involves no direct figurative appeal to specific sensuous equivalents, this is resolution as transcendence.

Plastic harmony (say, a dramatic painting) is exactly the same process as above, but where the graphic antagonisms illustrate sensual things at the same time; have figurative appeal while going about their graphic business – people doing stuff, trees blowing in the wind, yummy apples on drapes…
If a painting of a starving man in a windstorm coming across a plate of food makes us sit up and say; “Fuck me, that’s fuckin’ Ninja that is!” when a painting of exactly the same subject is ignored because it sucks, then it’s because one is in harmony and the other is not. One makes sense graphically and the other does not. One is meaningful and the other is not.
And I know that you know better than me why that is.

[kev ferrara]

A man shooting himself in the foot may not be logical, but it is a meaningful act as the consequences are certainly physical. So not all meaningful acts need to "make sense." (The assassination of Martin Luther King, for instance is very meaningful/consequential to a lot of people, but only "makes logical sense" from the point of view of virulent racists.)

I'm trying to point out that not all coherence is meaningful and not all meaning derives from logic. Aesthetic meaning, in fact, can derive from perfect illogic if that's the game being played on the viewer's mind. And good nonsense can be both internally consistent and yet meaningless with respect to how it alludes to life, except that it might make us laugh (who's on first, what's on second, I don't know's on third, for instance.) which gives it a consequence unrelated to its actual content. (Like old friends who converse just for the companionship and not for the substance of what is said.).

Whether math is self-evidently harmonic outside of human experience is one of those epistemology versus Platonist arguments that is ultimately unknowable. Architectonic harmony would fall under the same argumentative framework. All we can know for sure is that we find harmony harmonious.

Since (these resolved graphic antogonisms) involves no direct figurative appeal to specific sensuous equivalents, this is resolution as transcendence.

I don't agree with the first part of this sentence. And don't all resolutions transcend the original argument? (Hegel)