Don't lose your composure over composition...

[Pookeyhead]

Surprisingly sensible advice after the mess you made of your last thread.

I have one issue though.

2) look at but don't read about art, particularly modern and abstract art.

Why exactly is that? You do realise "modern" art is a period from roughly 1860 to the early 1970s. That's a LOT of art your advising people to ignore.

 

[Gortch]

I thought you understood copyright law, the use of original material and the waver of copyright for fans artwork.
I'm not using anyone's copyrighted material but my own, but if you feel that strongly then write to their lawyers
Twentieth Century Fox Films
Baker & Hostetler
Los Angeles, CA, 90017, US

Hum, I wonder where I got that address from?

If you do write to them, ask them about their letter to me in 1997. Yup that's right, it's my artwork, I have permission as a fan. It's not original studio work. That of course doesn't stop it getting copied all over the internet, but hey, it's avatar size, not the original.

I'll accept an apology, otherwise please desist from this pointless tirade that you are on. It's boring and unacceptable within the rules of this forum

And we will all need to just take your word for that again, and again, and again.... I know bull when i hear it.

 

[Byker28i]

I don't know why you're bothering, you know she'll accuse you of lying.

How right you were

 

[Gortch]

Surprisingly sensible advice after the mess you made of your last thread.

I have one issue though.





Why exactly is that? You do realise "modern" art is a period from roughly 1860 to the early 1970s. That's a LOT of art your advising people to ignore.

Modern art, notoriously, in many cases, gives much more emphasis to composition and structure than traditional art. I'm not advising them to ignore anything, I'm trying to get them to think more structurally. In a discussion about composition, it wouldn't make much sense to focus on the finer details etc. I'm also not suggesting that more traditional art forms neglect composition either, I just think in say cubism and other more abstract art, structure is given a more simplified emphasis.

 

[techguyone]

Modern art, notoriously, in many cases, gives much more emphasis to composition and structure than traditional art. I'm not advising them to ignore anything, I'm trying to get them to think more structurally. In a discussion about composition, it wouldn't make much sense to focus on the finer details etc. I'm also not suggesting that more traditional art forms neglect composition either, I just think in say cubism and other more abstract art, structure is given a more simplified emphasis.

I thought you were leaving.

 

[Nikon_Nick]

And we will all need to just take your word for that again, and again, and again.... I know bull when i hear it.

Ah ha ha ha ha! You are now my official forum fun monkey. Congratulations! !

 

[Pookeyhead]

Modern art, notoriously, in many cases, gives much more emphasis to composition and structure than traditional art.

No it doesn't. LOL

I'm not advising them to ignore anything, I'm trying to get them to think more structurally.

Yes you are.. you're trying to get them to ignore modern art. Hang on... you're trying to get them to think more structurally?... but you just said that modern art emphasises structure more than traditional art, and that's why you should ignore it... then you say you want people to concentrate on structure? I have an art education.. and I'm confused here... so I can only assume others are too.

As inconsistent as that statement was, it's also irrelevant as modern art is less bound by structure than "traditional" art... whatever that means. Traditional art is far more strictly bound by restrictions on composition than later forms of art.

In a discussion about composition, it wouldn't make much sense to focus on the finer details etc. I'm also not suggesting that more traditional art forms neglect composition either, I just think in say cubism and other more abstract art, structure is given a more simplified emphasis.

I think you're making the mistake of thinking that "modern" art is represented by movements such as cubism.


Good composition, is quite simply... whatever works for the shot in question. It's one area that you need to accept that there are no rules... and as soon as you do that, it becomes quite hard to teach it. Trust me... I teach it.

 

[Gortch]

No it doesn't. LOL



Yes you are.. you're trying to get them to ignore modern art. Hang on... you're trying to get them to think more structurally?... but you just said that modern art emphasises structure more than traditional art, and that's why you should ignore it... then you say you want people to concentrate on structure? I have an art education.. and I'm confused here... so I can only assume others are too.

As inconsistent as that statement was, it's also irrelevant as modern art is less bound by structure than "traditional" art... whatever that means. Traditional art is far more strictly bound by restrictions on composition than later forms of art.




I think you're making the mistake of thinking that "modern" art is represented by movements such as cubism.


Good composition, is quite simply... whatever works for the shot in question. It's one area that you need to accept that there are no rules... and as soon as you do that, it becomes quite hard to teach it. Trust me... I teach it.

You teach it and you are questioning whether cubism is modern art or not? Let's be clear, you are saying cubism is not modern art? I gave it as an example of modern are and you are saying it isn't, is that correct?

On the verge of weeping.

 

[Pookeyhead]

You teach it and you are questioning whether cubism is modern art or not? Let's be clear, you are saying cubism is not modern art? I gave it as an example of modern are and you are saying it isn't, is that correct?

On the verge of weeping.

No.. I'm saying it's not representative of modern art. I don't believe I said it's NOT modern art. Please read more clearly.


[edit]

Incidentally... I don't teach art as an academic subject. I teach photography.

 

[Gortch]

Good composition, is quite simply... whatever works for the shot in question. It's one area that you need to accept that there are no rules... and as soon as you do that, it becomes quite hard to teach it. Trust me... I teach it.

This is almost word for word what I said in my opening statement. I advised people to ignore the rule of thirds and other preconcieved ideas. As is often the case with self-professed experts, and you are in the self-professed expert industry by the sound of things, you want to teach and preach but aren't so keen on reading and imbibing.

I suppose that's the way you are wired, otherwise why teach? Assuming you are telling the truth that is, which I don't.

 

[Gortch]

No.. I'm saying it's not representative of modern art. I don't believe I said it's NOT modern art. Please read more clearly.


[edit]

Incidentally... I don't teach art as an academic subject. I teach photography.

Ok so you accept that cubism is a good example of modern art. So why bother digging me up for saying that? Just so you can sound like you are omniscient? All you have succeeded in doing is distracting myself and those who want to focus on the subject with me from learning more about composition. You should apologise for that and if you are a teacher you should know better and know how difficult people causing distractions can be.

 

[Pookeyhead]

This is almost word for word what I said in my opening statement. I advised people to ignore the rule of thirds and other preconcieved ideas.

But you go on to list prescriptive ways of working that in your opinion, result in good composition. I maintain that's problematic. Composition is fluid, transferable and ultimately without limits and can only be viewed as "good" or "bad" in the context of the image in question. There's literally no such thing as "bad" composition in itself... only bad for the image in question.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Ok so you accept that cubism is a good example of modern art. So why bother digging me up for saying that?

I didn't... I pulled you on advising people to ignore all modern art.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I suppose that's the way you are wired, otherwise why teach? Assuming you are telling the truth that is, which I don't.

I'm sorry.. would you care to explain that statement? I can assure you I'm not wired... listening to music.. sipping a single malt. Quite chilled. (me.. not the whiskey)

 

[Nod]

(No "e" in most single malt whisky, David - although there are some fine non-Scotch malts!)

 

[Dr_O]

Decided to come back north in the forum after yesterdays jaunt.

This is good, learning lots

 

[Gortch]

But you go on to list prescriptive ways of working that in your opinion, result in good composition. I maintain that's problematic. Composition is fluid, transferable and ultimately without limits and can only be viewed as "good" or "bad" in the context of the image in question. There's literally no such thing as "bad" composition in itself... only bad for the image in question.

This sums you up. Don't you see that we are forced to use prescriptive ways. Where do you think cameras came from, thin air? You're out to take a picture, inevitably there are certain hoops you need to jump through, one being you need a camera that creates a two dimensional representation of a 3d environment. God give me strength.

 

[Pookeyhead]

and if you are a teacher you should know better and know how difficult people causing distractions can be.

I'm not at work.

 

[Gortch]

I tell people to think outside of the box and ignore the rule of thirds and other preconcieved ideas, and get accused of isting "prescriptive ways of working"! Seriously.

5 minutes ago he was claiming to teach modern art whilst suggesting cubism wasn't an example of modern art. But now he's an all-knowing photographer...

Utter insanity.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Don't you see that we are forced to use prescriptive ways.

No.. because we don't if we don't want to.

 

[Pookeyhead]

5 minutes ago he was claiming to teach modern art whilst suggesting cubism wasn't an example of modern art. But now he's an all-knowing photographer...

Utter insanity.

I never once suggested, or even implied cubism wasn't modern art. I also never said I teach modern art. I teach photography.

 

[Gortch]

I'm sorry.. would you care to explain that statement? I can assure you I'm not wired... listening to music.. sipping a single malt. Quite chilled. (me.. not the whiskey)

I have no evidence that you are an expert in modern art and have no reason to believe you are. Quite the opposite. We have had other people in here making grandiose claims about their "work" being bought by magazines etc and we are all a little sceptical now.

I'm afraid henceforth, as a rule of thumb, if you are going to make reference to things we can't validate in argument, then they have no place in argument and we would need to ask you to desist -- unless you are willing to validate them.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Talking of validation... where's your work?

What exactly would you like me to validate?


I'll let you read my posts properly. I do not teach modern art. Please catch up on your own thread.

 

[Gortch]

No.. because we don't if we don't want to.

Ok so explain to me how you are going to make a photograph without a camera. If I was you I'd consider crawling out the door you walked in, this is getting to be embarassing.

Out of interest, will you at least tell us where you teach all this stuff? I want to give my kids all the help I can with their UCAS forms...

 

[Pookeyhead]

Ok so explain to me how you are going to make a photograph without a camera.

I'm sorry.. can you explain the relevance? I said there are no rules, and composition is limitless. How does your question bear any relevance?

 

[Ed Sutton]

Surprisingly sensible advice after the mess you made of your last thread.

I have one issue though.


Why exactly is that? You do realise "modern" art is a period from roughly 1860 to the early 1970s. That's a LOT of art your advising people to ignore.

At least you got an answer.

I actually think the five bits of advice in the first post ought to be taken on board by more photographers. Particularly the bits about looking at and studying art - although I disagree with the out of hand dismissal of reading about art and of the value of modern/abstract art.

 

[Gortch]

Talking of validation... where's your work?

What exactly would you like me to validate?


I'll let you read my posts properly. I do not teach modern art. Please catch up on your own thread.

We have already discussed the issue of validating opinions and have concluded that opinion and argument should stand on its own merits and that there is no need to provide examples to support arguments, as I have done here. Again, I recommend you read more and preach less. If everyone else can string together a few coherent words, there's no excuse for an expert like you not to.

 

[Pookeyhead]

We have already discussed the issue of validating opinions and have concluded that opinion and argument should stand on its own merits and that there is no need to provide examples to support arguments,.

So why are you asking me to validate everything I say?

 

[Gortch]

I'm sorry.. can you explain the relevance? I said there are no rules, and composition is limitless. How does your question bear any relevance?

Because the very instant you decide to take a photograph is the same instant you agree to create a 2d representation of a 3d world and that is prescriptive. Remember, I opened with how important it was to try and think outside of the box but I at least accept that the medium itself does impose certain limitations -- one being you are basically making a rectangular picture. There are many others.

It's a very odd ego that embarks upon a crusade telling people to ignore all the rules of composition and attacks someone for saying that very thing.

 

[Gortch]

So why are you asking me to validate everything I say?

I'm not. I'm being very specific about what I am asking you to validate. I'm asking you to validate the very thing you rely upon for imposing the sense that you have some sort of superiority here (i.e. that you are an expert who teaches). We both know you will not though so that means we are forced to either just believe you without proof and accept you as an expert, bowing at your feet in the process, or to doubt you. Given some of the things you implied about Cubism not being modern art, no offence, but I am in the doubting camp.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Because the very instant you decide to take a photograph is the same instant you agree to create a 2d representation of a 3d world and that is prescriptive.

And that means you are limited to certain compositional rules how exactly?

Remember, I opened with how important it was to try and think outside of the box but I at least accept that the medium itself does impose certain limitations -- one being you are basically making a rectangular picture. There are many others.

I never said the medium is limitless. It has an edge to the worlds you create, yes. I said there are no limits to what you do compositionally within whatever frame your chosen medium offers you. However, having said that, I can choose to extend that frame as see fit. Why am I limited to the frame my camera affords me?

It's a very odd ego that embarks upon a crusade telling people to ignore all the rules of composition and attacks someone for saying that very thing.

I wasn't attacking you. I merely said I had a problem with one of the points you made: You chose to interpret it as an attack. I thought I was making a reasonable point. You broadly wiped out around 120 years of art with one glib statement and I thought that needed addressing.

 

[ecoleman]

Anybody know any good photography forums?

 

[Gortch]

I think we'll call a halt to the learning process for today, folks. I am sorry about the distractions caused over the last half hour but I think we all came through that with a reinforced sense of what we need to do to rise above the everyday noise that surrounds these subjects.

I will pop in tomorrow and if any of you have any questions feel free to send me a private message. I might pop into some of the other threads too later so don't be a stranger and feel free to say "hi".

Thanks for coming and keep on keeping on.

 

[Gortch]

. You broadly wiped out around 120 years of art with one glib statement and I thought that needed addressing.

You really expect me to give a full account of 120 years of art in order to make a simple point? At this stage you should be wondering if you are possibly insane -- if you aren't, you're definitely insane.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I'm not. I'm being very specific about what I am asking you to validate.

As am I: Your work.

I'm asking you to validate the very thing you rely upon for imposing the sense that you have some sort of superiority here (i.e. that you are an expert who teaches).

Everyone on here knows where and what I teach. Maybe if you spent some time on here getting to know people before alienating everyone you'd have found out in a more conversational and organic way.

We both know you will not though

Correct. Only because it's public information and you're just being lazy If you need to know badly enough you can easily find out as it's a matter of public record.

so that means we are forced to either just believe you without proof and accept you as an expert

No you don't... and who's this we any way? Most on here know full well what I do for a living and where I do it.

, bowing at your feet in the process, or to doubt you. Given some of the things you implied about Cubism not being modern art, no offence, but I am in the doubting camp.

Onec again.. you seem to be having difficulty with this. I did not say cubism was not modern art. I do wish you'd read my replies properly.

 

[Pookeyhead]

You really expect me to give a full account of 120 years of art in order to make a simple point? At this stage you should be wondering if you are possibly insane -- if you aren't, you're definitely insane.

No, I expect you not to tell people to ignore 120 year's worth of art.

 

[viv1969]

I'm sorry to interrupt...but I'm in Kent here. Could someone please tell me the direction I should be watching the sky tonight in order to spot his mother ship?

Ta very much.

 

[Pookeyhead]

We need to identify the species first.

 

[Dr_O]

Try here

 

[Pookeyhead]

http://psychopath.channel4.com/quizzes.html

Fixed that for ya me old mucka!