Thursday, January 11, 2007

Rules

Robert commented on my article at Luminous Landscape to the effect that he is uncomfortable with dealing with aesthetic level definitions, fearing, I think; anything which would force people into a standard set of rules for creating good photographs.

This is a very good point. If we define levels by rules, to some extent we are doing just what he fears. I was careful in defining the aesthetic levels (his biggest concern) to describe them in ways that have to do with getting the message across, emotional impact and clarity of vision, hardly rules. On the other hand, if I say that an image should be strongly composed, am I not implying that the image follow the 'usual advice' about lines to corners, rule of thirds, etc. etc.?

There are two points I would like to make.

Firstly, being strongly composed is a goal rather than a rule. It might be my goal to drive safely, but a speed limit is a rule. There are times when many would consider it safe to drive over the speed limit (if they could get away with it) but other times when even doing the speed limit is clearly unsafe. 'divide the picture into thirds' is a rule. It may or may not result in a strongly composed image. Even if it were a really good rule/guideline/suggestion, to apply it 100% of the time would be incredibly boring.

The second point is that many great artists deliberately flaunt previous 'rules' of good art, it is my strong impression that the vast majority of them learned to work within the rules before moving on to break them. One has only to look at the paintings of Picasso and then look at his drawings to realize that he had great skills in traditional methods/rules/techniques/styles before moving on to create new styles.

If you are to design a better toilet seat, it helps if you have been constipated a few times in your life and have a working familiarity with the standard model.

Thus, I don't think that it does any harm to describe aesthetic or technical levels, nor does it force one to conform.

If it helps, think of it this way. I indicated that to move from level one to two, one would need to be able to get sharp pictures. This doesn't mean they have to be sharp =- there may be a perfectly valid reason for unsharpness, but one should at least be capable of creating sharp pictures when needed, most of the time.

I think there are alltogether too many 'artists' who couldn't produce a sharp picture for 'love or money' and who don't know when its useful to have a sharp image and when it's not.

Some new art stands the test of time and these artists are recognized later as leaders and innovators. Other new art is still junk many years later (if you can even find it). I suspect that the former group of artists learned the rules and acquired the skills before going on to break them creatively. I'm not convinced many of the latter group were so dilligent.

3 comments:

Robert D Feinman said...

I don't think we have a basic disagreement, but there is a difference between proscriptive advice and inspirational advice.

One also needs to consider the goals of the person making the image. For many it is an aid to memory and helping them produce a more technically accurate result is useful.

Others try to win contests. To me these people are trying to follow convention and those who do it the best win. If this is the goal then they must play by the rules.

For others doing things for self expression, aesthetic advice may suppress innovation. Those with a strong personality can ignore convention, but others may be discouraged.

It's all a matter of nuance and who the advice is being aimed at.

George Barr said...

I took a few moments to reread the section of the article on aesthetic levels and quote:

Level C Aesthetic

Images do generate admiration by friends but perhaps not photographers or artists. They capture peak action, best poses, dramatic lighting. They begin to show some awareness of composition and are almost good enough for the "New Sarepta Tire And Girdle Company' annual calendar. They have no artistic merit at this point and can be generally described as ‘pretty pictures’.

Level D Aesthetic

Images are starting to show value in and of themselves rather than as a reminder of something or someone special. It's easy to see that some effort has been made to compose the picture in ways that are interesting and that the photographer is being creative. There are elements of the image which don't quite work and it's the kind of image which makes you think that this would have been a great image if only I could reshoot it and fix X and Y. Some of the compositional elements work but not all. The photographer is within a few feet of the right place, a few hours from the right time. The image isn’t strong however and it’s message is not clear. There are elements in the image which distract from it’s power.

It seems to me that the differences between these two levels is hardly a set of proscriptive rules. Nothing is said about dividing the picture into thirds or any other such rule. Rather the levels are better defined by the impact the images have on people including the photographer himself. Perhaps Robert is imagining that the next two articles are about to provide the set of rules he's uncomfortable with - but I think he's just going to have to give me a chance to prove myself.

Unfortunately for all photographers, correcting technical errors is always easier than learning to photograph with impact, meaning, message and emotion. The advice could be simple - spend 10 minutes looking at each of 1000 good photographs and come back and we'll talk.

Few hobbyists take the time and those who do sometimes become artists.

Problem is: most of us have the ability to see that an image is crap, but we don't always know why and usually don't know what to do about it.

Mark said...

I read the article with interest and thought it was a good idea for photographers to self-examine where they may be in their development, even if one doesn't agree exactly with all the definitions.

I do think that even though someone may obtain a coveted '6F' level - they still must be humble enough to accept they will make many 1A images. Of course, they don't have to show those to anyone... :-)