[Jeezus]

ok, i keep hearing about this 'rule of thirds' for composing pictures. would anyone mind explaining this to me? thankya.

[CyberArtist]

To put it simply, it's the idea that you never want to place something perfectly in the center of the image.

If you folded up the image into equal thirds along either the horizontal or vertical, you want the main point of interest to be along one of the folds. Don't worry about placing things along a 1/3 fold line on both the vertical and horizontal, just one direction is all that matters... usually on the widest/tallest dimension.


------------------
-CyberA(rtist) aka Ben Golus

Cyber...

[Affected]

And as far as focal points go, the primary one (Where the eye first looks) is around the top left corner of the image.

------------------
Affected

Knowledge is belief and belief is knowledge
http://affected.xs.mw

[Muzman]

I like hearing about art theory from those in the know and this case in no exception.
but I still think this particular theory is a load of the proverbial.

I guess it's like the old 'crossing the 180 degree line' rule in film. It's a weird old formal idea of that's fun to break.

[Muzman]

I like hearing about art theory from those in the know and this case in no exception.
but I still think this particular theory is a load of the proverbial.

I guess it's like the old 'crossing the 180 degree line' rule in film. It's a weird old formal idea of that's fun to break. The fact that it is an old, accepted formal standard giving an artist a whole raft of effects to create via breaking it.

[Sumaleth]

'Rule' is probably a bad term to use, but the 'rule of thirds' and all the many other rules regarding art and film are always worth keeping in the back of your mind. Use them as guidelines rather than rules.

They're not baseless rules either, each of these "rules" is based on the way the human mind reacts to images.

You know how when you look at an amature picture and can literally "feel" that the balance is wrong? If you were to really dig into that feeling and work out - technically - why you get that feeling, you'll find that the reasons are related to these "rules". In other words, the "rules" are a technical explanation of human intuition, and because of this they can be used in the reverse order - that is, they can be used to 'create' the feeling of balance.

Some rules I agree with more than others. For example, I totally agree with the '180 degree' line that Muzman mentioned (if I see that rule broken without some clever cutting I always go 'eeek'), but on the other hand I actually really like 'symetical' framing just as much as 'thirds'.

But you can't "break the rules" unless you know and understand them in the first place, and then specifically choose to try something else.

Rowan.

--
Sumaleth
Fountainhead Entertainment

http://impact.frag.com

[Jeezus]

ah.. i see. weird tho how most of my favorite pictures didnt seem to 'apply' this rule.

[Sumaleth]

Jeezus;

Perhaps those images don't make use of the thirds 'rule' but do they use other similar rules? For example, the image that Dhabih just posted is a pretty clear triangular layout which is also a commonly used "rule".

Sumaleth

[Muzman]

(rather weird double post there)

This is the thing which has always bugged me about the arts in general. There's always this rock solid psychology that underpins technique (people often try to pass it off as biology too which is rather disturbing). Really its just culture perpetuating itself (we see something enough that we expect it and so formality then justifies its own existence).
I'm not going to say that these formalities don't apply; they do, I use them all the time knowingly or otherwise. People expect to see them (which now gives them a kind of commercial necessity).
I just hope that the formalities are not taught as absolute truth, but as just another bit of western art tradition.

[Sumaleth]

Muz;

What makes you think that these 'rules' come from only the environment? I'm sure there's an element of that in it, but we're talking about rules of composition that have been in existance for hundreds of years spanning many different cultures and times.

I can see how the idea of it being biological (as you put it) might be a little odd (it's -very- hard to explain through the evolutionary process), but there does seem to be something to it.

Sumaleth.

[Muzman]

If they don't come from culture there really isn't anywhere else for them to come from other than biology. I suppose without going into heaps of study and detail all I can say is I'm not buying it.
It's not that these formalities are wrong, they are sure to have been recognised for a reason. But on the other hand that doesn't prove them as being fundaments of conciousness or something either.

You might know some studies that suggest otherwise though.

[Sumaleth]

No, I don't know of any studies but it's definitely an interesting question.

There are, of course, many things the make any a "human" which can't really be explained easily by evolution. They are simply there because they happen to evolve and they didn't get in the way of survival.

Or alternatively, perhaps it has something to do with the way the brain interprets an image. It doesn't just "see" what the is in view, it analyses the image is seems in very complex ways and from that it determines what you are looking at (which is why it isn't fool proof).

So maybe it's analytical process somehow revolves around certain shapes and layouts, and what we interpret to be "nice design" is really nothing more than "I recognise this layout".

Sumaleth