Breaking the Rules

[Bob Ebdon]

This comes from a recent visit to a PreRaphaelite exhibition and a view that not many Golden Means were on display. This was followed by Roxana's comment that "Doing away with conventional methods of composition was actually one of their goals! ". This fits with a view I have held for a while that some of the best pictures are the ones which break the rules - though of course I accept that you should know what the rules are!

So - here are a couple. "The scapegoat", William Holman Hunt. I have seen this in the Manchester Art Gallery. It is enormous and it made me cry. It was described by Ford Madox Brown as "one of the most tragic and impressive works in the annals of art". there is a second version of this in the Lady Lever Gallery - without the rainbow and with a slightly more fleshy and paler goat. It is said that Hunt actually tied up a goat in this condition and sat painting it.

Compositionally - it stinks! Doesn't it?

Then how about "Beata Beatrix", Rosetti's portrait of his wife Elisabeth Siddal, herself a great painter, who died in 1862. Beatrice sits in a death like trance while a messenger of death delivers a poppy, with Love and Dante in the background. Where is the focus? It must be the face. Yet this is not the brightest area, nor is it on a sweet spot - so how does that work?

I hope to encourage discussion here, but may not be able to get in too much as I have several busy days ahead.

[Valda]

"Doing away with conventional methods of composition was actually one of their goals! ".

What an odd sort of goal. I guess some people just hate any kind of "rules". But in the case of art, good composition can make the difference between a ho-hum painting and a great one.

It seems to me that when modern artists try to make a social or political statement that this often overrides compositional issues (be it intentional or unintentional). The result does certainly make their statement, but may be so weak compositionally that the viewer dismisses the message while being bored or repelled by the art.

The Masters painted many many allegorical paintings that were good art but also had a message. Those that have stood the test of time are those that also had good compositional structure. And art students have studied them in depth ever since.

Regarding the two samples you posted here, Bob, I'd have to agree with you about the painting of the goat, although I can see that the goat does sit in the line of the lower third section. In Resotti's painting, all the elements point inward (as opposed to the goat painting where they lead the eye off the canvas). When I look at it, the focus seems to be the bird's beak with the poppy, but, as you say, this is not the brightest part of the painting. I'm thinking that if Resotti broke the rules, it wasn't very many of them.

Well, there's my observations for discussion.

Valda

[artfulscribe]

My personal opinion is that there's a place for both approaches. It's true...most conventional/traditional composition theories produce 'harmony.' However, to build on this musical analogy, discordant notes can have a tremendous impact as well. In fact, perhaps even more so, because they stand out and 'get under your skin.' I can just as easily carry the analogy over to poetry. If you want to make an impact, sometimes you take choice lines or words out of their natural rhythm. I believe the same can apply to visual composition.

Roxana

[Valda]

Of course, there's room for all approaches. Coming from a more traditional bend of mind and preferences, while I may find the discord-type art (music or anything else) perhaps interesting in its way, or causing one to reflect - I wouldn't hang the piece in my home.

I was struck by the goal as "doing away with" conventional composition. Somehow this strikes me as a rather weak goal - artistically speaking - but is more of a rebellion against perceived restraints. Actually, there are no artistic restraints - one is free to paint/draw/perform/write however one wants to. I expect the only restraint is if one wants to get paid for or sell ones pieces, in which the market becomes somewhat narrow.

(Now, please don't interpret my comments as attacking those people who want to make a statement artistically. I'm just mentioning my observations - from my point of view. I do realize that I am in a minority in the art world, being a traditionalist and really prefering art to be harmonious.)

Roxana - how do you view the samples Bob posted here in this thread?

Valda

[Lahree]

Would anyone who has photoshop be willing to put the overlay of the Golden Mean on the two paintings? For someone who is as bad as comp as I am, it would help greatly to see how the elements do not fit the convention.

[Valda]

Here's my effort. Divided into 8 parts each way, drew the lines at the 3/8 mark.

[KarenCardinal]

Bob,
This is a great thread! Thank you!
I definately love the Rosetti. I'm not sure why I like his work so much. ;)

One of my favorite "break all the rules" pieces is Toulouse-Lautrec's "At the Moulin Rouge". Although I have to admit ever since I saw an exhibit of his sketches, I've been a real Lautrec fan. :D

[Bob Ebdon]

Thanks for that Valda, and for all comments so far. I had not actually noticed that the goats head was near the sweet spot! All I can say is that it is the least favoured of the four sweet spots - I think you will find more pictures with the focus at the other three in landscape format than at that one. And it is not spot on.

But look at all the other faux-pas - the horizontal line dividing the pic across the middle, the moon drawing attention top left, the rainbow kissing the left edge - yet this is an incredibly moving picture.

The Beata - I see the sundial - symbol of aging, time passing, pointing to the face, and if you look closely enough the two misty figures are looking at the face, but not much else leads me there Valda. I feel this painting is a lot to do with the complementary reds and greens, and the glow of the yellow/orange leading you around the picture. I think that the rest of the picture is deliberatley jarring - the false notes that Roxana refers to - leaving the face as the island of peace. The hands are also incredibly sensitive here though, with a feeling of acceptance in them, yet again they are almost hidden away.
I like your musical analogy very much Roxana. The music of the time that these artists would have listened to would surely have been Berlioz, Saint-Saens and Wagner. Just beginning to stretch the ideas of tonality and rythym - it would have been a better fit maybe with musicians yet to come - Debussy and Stravinsky!

[Lahree]

Thanks for doing the photoshop Valda!

Now, I have some questions. Where is the sweet spot? When you look at them divided up this way--if you were following the Golden Mean rule for comp--where is the sweet spot? Is it inside each box? Is it where the lines intersect? Is there more than one sweet spot in a pic? Does there have to be just ONE object/face/etc/, as a focal point? :confused: This really helps me to understand comp! I am sorry if my questions are lame (and 99% of you already know the answer :blushing: ) I want very much to understand this. :)

[Bob Ebdon]

Not lame at all Lori. I really hope Arlene comes in to check out what I say here though cos I am not sure I am certain myself. But as I understand it, there are four sweet spots, each where the lines intersect. Really these should be on the Golden Mean intersections, but the thirds is a close enough approximation of this.I attach a page from my sketchbook - actually its not quite the full page as it wouldn't fit. I sometimes try things out like this, trying four different versions of the same picture, with the focus at each sweet spot in turn. Just divide the sketch into thirds and start your drawing at the focus each time, and see what you have to include to fill the sketch. It is very revealing seeing what has to go into the picture to make the focus where you want it. Also, I think it helps you see that some spots are more favourable than others for certain subjects - not all of these sketches would work as pictures.

Does there have to be one focal point? The PreRaphaelites would say no. Many of their pictures are absolutely full of details and they want your eye to wander everywhere. Some Old Masters would be full of what looks like detail - until you look closely and find it merely suggestions, with a very definite focus somewhere. Some pictures seem to me to have no focus - Mondrians or Pollocks obviously, but even Monets Waterlilies, or Picasso's Guernica. These rules seem to me to be set up for a particular style of art, just as rules of harmony apply to a particular form of music.

[Valda]

Lahree

I'll give you a simple answer according to what I know so far.

There are four possible spots to place the focal point -where the lines intersect. All other elements in the painting should direct the eye around the painting to toward the focus. There can be secondary points of focus, but they should NOT be be as strong as the main one (ie., brightness, contrast, etc.)

Strong horizontal lines in the painting are best placed along the lines of the 3/8 divisions. However, they should not lead the eye off the edge of the canvas and out of the painting, so the artist needs to place something to stop the eye and redirect it back into the painting (such as a tree or building - and in the case of the goat painting, the rainbow may work for this)

In the case of the "Beata Beatrix" painting that Bob posted, even though there is a large light-valued space behind the woman's head and up to the endge of the canvas, I think that the fact that her eyes are looking downward and the strong chin line pointing down bring the eye back into the painting. People always look first to the eyes of a portrait painting.

I spend time looking at the Masters paintings from library books, and mostly just divide them up like I did above, look for the focal point in relation to the "sweet spots" and see where the horizontal aspects of the painting lie. This little exercise has been very instructional for me and helps me keep these points in mind when planning my own paintings and drawings.

Composition is more complicated than this, and the golden mean is not the only compositional design, but it is the most prevelent among the Masters and the successful artists today. I figure if I can master this, than I have taken a giant step with composition. (Wondering how long this is going to take!!)

Oh, I see Bob has answered your question - we must have been on line at the same time.

[Valda]

Some Old Masters would be full of what looks like detail - until you look closely and find it merely suggestions, with a very definite focus somewhere.

I've noticed this, also, as I've studied photos of these paintings. And, also, paintings by modern artists. I have several Splash books and enjoy "disecting" all the paintings. There are many artists in these books who paint incredible detail and so many objects in a still life, but, as you say, it's deceptive in that the all these different elements still have the function of taking the eye on a journey through the painting and up to the focal point.


Some pictures seem to me to have no focus - Mondrians or Pollocks obviously, but even Monets Waterlilies, or Picasso's Guernica. These rules seem to me to be set up for a particular style of art, just as rules of harmony apply to a particular form of music.

I've always had a difficult time relating to Monet's paintings, at least, his later works (which I saw pictures of in a library book) which just seem to me to be random strokes of color. Maybe I should revisit the book and apply the golden mean to them and see what comes up.

[Lahree]

Bob and Valda, I can not thank you enough for your education on the Golden Mean. I am beginning to understand better. Some things I am very slow to learn, while others I can pick up on right away. There are so many things to remember and learn in composition. Leading the eye in, having the eye travel through the pic, etc. It can be overwhelming (at least to me) to learn. This is such good information and this way I can kind of break it down into sections and try to assimilate each section.

THANK YOU SOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH!!!

[Rose]

Awesome thread... I had no idea how important the sweet spots were and how many rules there are to good compositions! Additional thanks from me for all of this super info! :-)

[Valda]

With all of this said about rules - a lot of this comes by instinct to the artist. One knows something looks good, but can't say why. Knowing some rules helps fine tune the composition that started out pretty good in the first place.

I suppose that's why the "rules" are not hard and fast and that breaking them can work well at times.

[KarenCardinal]

You're so right Valda!
Most of the time we can look at our work and just feel that the balance isn't working. Also getting too bogged down about the rules can sometimes hinder us.

For someone like me, having fabulous tutorials like this, and people like Arlene draw red lines all over my drawings... helps me so much. I still make tons and tons of mistakes with it, but the mistakes are so much easier for me to spot and correct early on now.

Thank you Bob for this thread! :D

[artfulscribe]

This is such a great thread, and in an effort to learn more about what these artists were trying to accomplish, I ran across what I thought was an incredibly thorough analysis of The Scapegoat. It covers not only what Hunt set out to do, but also how it was received at the time. If you quickly scan through the narrative, you'll begin to see references to composition toward the end (13th paragraph from the top discusses it in terms of the golden mean). Ruskin absolutely panned it for all the reasons already mentioned in this thread, but the symbolism is so powerful, it isn't so easily dismissed. In addition to much criticism, it also received a fair amount of praise. The end result is that the strong opinions probably generated some controversy...a great thing for an artist's career ;)

Check it out:
http://www.victorianweb.org/painting/whh/replete/scapegoat.html

I'm the first person to admit I'm totally out of my leage when it comes to discussing the mechanics of composition, so I won't even go there! I work instinctively, so now I'm very interested in learning about why certain things work. Again, great thread! (I've rated it...)

Roxana

[Amazingreys]

Now, I have some questions. Where is the sweet spot? When you look at them divided up this way--if you were following the Golden Mean rule for comp--where is the sweet spot? Is it inside each box? Is it where the lines intersect? Is there more than one sweet spot in a pic? Does there have to be just ONE object/face/etc/, as a focal point? :confused: This really helps me to understand comp! I am sorry if my questions are lame (and 99% of you already know the answer :blushing: ) I want very much to understand this. :)

These aren't lame questions Lahree.....I'm very glad you asked them. I had the same ones, but felt too stupid to ask. With no formal art education, this is all very confusing and overwhelming to me. This is a great thread and it is helping me understand more.
Thank you EVERYONE for contributing! I'm loving this. :)

[Valda]

Whew!!! I read most of the article (well, okay, I skimmed a lot). Now I understand The Skapegoat painting a lot better and it has more value because of this. (Although, I still don't like it asthetically, but that wasn't Hunt's intent.)

It was interesting, also, to read of all the controversy surrounding this painting. One tends to think this kind of thing is only a modern phenonemon - not so - just human nature.

Thanks for doing the research on this, Roxana. It's in discussions like this that I am acutely aware of my lack of formal art education. This makes me want to do some more reading at our excellent local library (they have stacks and stacks of books on and about art and artists)

[Katydid]

very interesting thread - i hope more comments are added - i know there are a lot of folks here that know rules, and i would like to hear when they break them and why.

[Bob Ebdon]

Many thanks for the link to that fascinating article on the Scapegoat, Roxana. I found it very useful in settling what had worried me about the differences between the two pictures. The one I posted was an early study, apparently, and the final version, which I have also seen, I attach below. I find it intriguing that he lost the rainbow in the final version, and turned the goat from black to white. I should aso point out the size of this - the goat is life sized, it is a very imposing piece especially in that huge gold frame.

I thought the article was very dismissive, and un-neccessarily prescriptive - very set in its opinions. I am interested in how this picture make such an impression DESPITE its acknowledged "poor" composition. The biggest thing for me was the realization of WHY Hunt broke one rule in particular. He put the goat slap bang in the centre, and right at the front of the picture. The rules say this is wrong. the focus should be offset a little (in the sweet spot) because this helps lead the eye around the picture. Once your eye is in the middle, where does it go next? It is stuck! But this was the whole point with Hunts picture. He wanted to focus the eye on the one spot, not have it move about, he wanted to confront the viewer and make them think. he wanted the picture to be an aid to meditation on the subject. So it was - as always with great artists - a conscious breaking of the rules, not a mistake.

Does it work? I guess it comes down to the symbolism - as long as you understand the symbolism! A picture can only communicate as long as it speaks the same language as the viewer. But I don't think you can dismiss a picture as a failure if it does not follow the rules, and that was what I tried to say in this thread.

[Bob Ebdon]

I am unable to get to a computer for the next six days. Please keep adding to this thread - I am learning a lot from it, and would love the chance to see work by other artists who have broken the rules deliberately and got away with it.

[Katydid]

this is one of my many weakness. what are some good books one design and perspective? i know with out a good design, the final results will be poor no matter how well the subject is rendered, so what would you all suggest?

thanks in advance
kay

[CarrieLLewis]

Of course, there's room for all approaches. Coming from a more traditional bend of mind and preferences, while I may find the discord-type art (music or anything else) perhaps interesting in its way, or causing one to reflect - I wouldn't hang the piece in my home.

I was struck by the goal as "doing away with" conventional composition. Somehow this strikes me as a rather weak goal - artistically speaking - but is more of a rebellion against perceived restraints. Actually, there are no artistic restraints - one is free to paint/draw/perform/write however one wants to. I expect the only restraint is if one wants to get paid for or sell ones pieces, in which the market becomes somewhat narrow.

(Now, please don't interpret my comments as attacking those people who want to make a statement artistically. I'm just mentioning my observations - from my point of view. I do realize that I am in a minority in the art world, being a traditionalist and really prefering art to be harmonious.)

Roxana - how do you view the samples Bob posted here in this thread?

ValdaValda,

I agree with you. I just finished reading a book about the Impressionists and basically, the feeling I came away with was that those artists were also rebelling against the status quo. Whether their rebellion was worth it or not is up to others to decide.

For me, art should be inspiring, uplifting and beautiful. That is what I enjoy looking at wherever I look at art. That is what I would put in my own house. That is what I try to create.

Bob, I believe I saw a reproduction of the Scape Goat and it was lighter, so it must have been the second version you referred to. It was in a daily devotional and I didn't realize it was based on an old work. How interesting.

However, I think that the 'burden' the scapegoat bore is part of the composition and is why the goat was placed in the lower half of the painting. The fact that the scapegoat was sent out into the desert also has a lot to do with why the artist chose to place the goat in the painting where he did, isolated from everything else.

As for the second painting, my eye went immediately to the hands and then to the face. I looked at it several moments before actually looking at the other aspects of the composition.

It seems to me that composition is more than just where things are placed on the picture plane. Why the subject was chosen in the first place and how the artist wants to portray it also factor into the design decisions, I think. Sometimes that is perceived as breaking the rules, but I have to wonder what other 'rules' may have been in play.

Editted to Add:

This second picture is the one I saw. I guess I must have a little bit better handle on composition (or theology) than I thought because a lot of what I mentioned above I also found in that article.

I am finding as I get older and move along my artistic path that it's almost as much fun learning about old art as it is making new art!

[Lahree]

In Rossetti's work, my eye immediately goes to her face first and then her hands. So if that was Rossetti's intent, it worked. In this case her face does not need to be in the "sweet spot" to acheive being the focus. I think he acheived that with the glow around her face and the bird next to her hands draws my eye to her hands.

In the painting of the scapegoat I think the placement of the goat right in the center is a "in your face" type of placement. You can not help but notice the goat, the area around the goat is stark, parched, etc., and helps add to the isolation and desloation felt when viewing the painting.

I think that's why these two paintings "work" even though the elements are not to the exact specifications of the Golden Mean or rule of thirds. This has been an incredible lesson for me in comp and design. This thread is EXCELLENT!!!

[Bob Ebdon]

Thanks Lori and Carrie and everyone for your comments here. They have helped clarify for me a lot of things that have been knocking around in my head. Basically I feel that rules such as the Golden Mean are useful, they are there if you need them, they are "guaranteed" to give you a useful aesthetic and produce a picture that is pleasing to the eye. The problem comes when you don't neccessarily want something pleasing to the eye. If your picture is to convey a particular message, then maybe this rule has to go out the window, and other considerations come into play. I love the way we have teased out how Hunt got his message across not just in the subject but in the composition - how he placed the objects on the canvas.

Also Rosetti. The comments about the hands are so true. In any portrait it is natural to look at the face. I believe Rosetti here wanted us to consider the hands, as they are incredibly expressive and add to his message of acceptance of death. So he darkened the face a touch, and highlighted the hands. Simple.......NOT!

Thanks for all the comments. Where do we go from here? Anyone else want to propose some pictures to disect?