Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Composition, Design
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Posted
Here's a watercolour by Frank Webb.
In the introduction to his book "The Artist's Guide to Composition" he says,
"...composition is ignored by painters who cater to a public conditioned by photography, believing that a picture must have elaborate detail. Thus the world is overloaded with non-composed pictures insinuating themselves into every corner of our lives."
I think that this is perhaps worth discussing.
John
Posted
John, I was browsing Painters Online this lunchtime and saw your post.
If I may, I don't agree with the premiss of Frank Webb's statement. To begin with, composition in visual art is, I think, little to do with degree of detail and more to do with positioning of and choice of elements within the painting or drawing.
Furthermore, I don't agree with his view on photography. It is usual in photography, at any level, to frame the image before taking it. Therefore, he can't really make the case that photography overloads the world with non-composed pictures; it reads like an uninformed fallacy.
But I still feel he's not talking composition but detail. If he is, he may have a case. The photo, in the main, does not mimic sight, it records everything. If an artist is willing, and good enough, and has plenty of spare time, he or she can mimic a photo, but what's the point? We can take a photograph! In reality, our sight is very selective.
I believe a modern artist would better use their talents to mimic sight, that is to capture the essence of the subject, whatever makes it interesting, appealing, vibrant and lasting, or whatever feelings it evokes in the artist's mind. Detail isn't an essential component.
Lastly, I think a lot of artists might rely too much on copying, and copying too faithfully, from a photograph. I think there's a risk there of copying what the camera records rather than what the human sees.
Thanks John!
Ian.
Posted
I think its a nice composition and reflects a wonderful view of sunshine and shadow. Including the hint of sunshine on the mans shoulders that suggests that the pole is behind him 'and the wall'
The awning does have subtle colour and as the sun is directly on it will look somewhat bleached out, hence the subjects in front to give it its place within the painting as well as the shadow on its left.
The time of day to portray a scene makes all the difference it could be about 1 0 clock by the length of the cast shadows and to see anything on a paper would be difficult maybe that is why there is no print, just glare, from the angle the painter is at. Its a loose , unfussy, for a market scene.
To spite the bumpf some artists talk about, some have good work, and aren't we told when using photos - just because its there, you don't have to paint everything you see, good advice.
Edited
by carol
Posted
Trouble is, this is a quote from a book I've not read, commenting on pictures I've not seen. So while Webb will have had specific things in mind, I've no means of knowing what they are (other than by buying his book, which I probably won't because I'm mean). The painting shown above might be intended to show an over-cluttered scene, or a well-composed one - detail doesn't have to be microscopic in order to be intrusive, and I can't immediately anyway make sense of the picture and am not sufficiently intrigued to want to try.
So far as it goes, the statement he makes is obviously true IF the premise is sound - but I'm not sure that it is. Perhaps there are painters who become so obsessed by detail that they overlook the rudiments of composition, but on the whole I've not encountered them. The world may be overloaded by non-composed pictures - or it may not - but I'm not convinced that this much influences artists' practice. A close friend of mine is a professional photographer - he takes great care with the composition of his pictures, but is no slave to, eg, the rule of thirds: it's a useful convention, not an invitation to pictorial imprisonment.
I've no problem with the suggestion that pictures need to be composed, nor with the idea that photographs are not ideal bases for paintings: especially so if you've not taken them yourself and preferably augmented them with your own sketches and other shots to indicate where your chosen scene sits in relation to its surroundings. But Webb is saying, or implying, a lot more than that in just a few words; I'd like to read more so that I could better understand his point. I think John might consider writing a full review of the book, which can be posted here - we have a specific heading for reviews - it would help to avoid the problem with isolated quotes, which is that we all expand them in our own way and come to conclusions which might actually be the very reverse of those the writer was trying to make.
Posted
David - you know bad composition when you see it. The eye gets led out of a picture plane, for example, and there are countless other ways that just leave you with a (perhaps undefinable) sense of dissatisfaction. But a picture can be over-composed as well - every rule in the book laboriously followed until the thing dies on you. I think the 'rules', and I much prefer the term guidelines, are helpful when you're starting out - if only to provide you with a certain degree of confidence in your foundation-building - but in time one stops thinking consciously about composition, and just - composes.
I've referred before to a book I read donkey's years ago in which paintings were laboriously analysed, with diagrams imposed on them to show what the artist was doing when he composed his picture (or she composed hers, I should add): but whether the artist was actually conscious of those principles, or simply applied them, the author knew no more than I did. I've wondered since if I actually found the book helpful ... and can't honestly answer one way or the other: certainly, I needed to know that others had been here before and pondered those problems, and that these were their answers; so I suppose I did. But having absorbed all that, I've spent a long time trying to avoid being hag-ridden by it.
Posted
I do agree that the word 'rules' should be struck out of the artists vocabulary and guidelines is much better. However I much prefer the word 'suggestions'. Guidelines indicates a route you should take - suggestions indicates a route you may take. If you do follow a suggestion then you are more likely to come up with a worthwhile painting but, there again, I have seen many paintings which break the 'rules' and yet have worked in every sense.
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2