Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Osprey on June 08, 2009, 07:46:31 am

Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Osprey on June 08, 2009, 07:46:31 am
I'm sorry, I understand he's doing things differently, but to me most of J.P Caopnigro's stuff look like science fiction illustrations.  Not my thing at all.
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: colinb on June 08, 2009, 09:16:37 am
Quote from: Osprey
I'm sorry, I understand he's doing things differently, but to me most of J.P Caopnigro's stuff look like science fiction illustrations.  Not my thing at all.

I agree with your statement, but probably not with your sentiment. Michaelangelo's work has a bit more of a biblical focus than mine. But I think he  knew more about composition than I do. Perhaps the same is true of JPC.

c
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Schewe on June 08, 2009, 12:07:07 pm
Quote from: Osprey
I'm sorry, I understand he's doing things differently, but to me most of J.P Caopnigro's stuff look like science fiction illustrations.  Not my thing at all.


Uh huh.. . .guess you didn't bother to read the article huh? It was about composition which kinda goes well beyond photographic subject matter, right?
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Rob C on June 08, 2009, 03:30:50 pm
Guys, guys, nobody can teach you art, and if composition isn´t part of that, then nothing is.

Ciao - Rob C
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: dchew on June 08, 2009, 07:14:45 pm
Quote from: Rob C
Guys, guys, nobody can teach you art, and if composition isn´t part of that, then nothing is.

Ciao - Rob C

Perhaps, but articles like this can help some of us focus on what to practice.

Dave
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Kirk Gittings on June 08, 2009, 07:26:11 pm
Quote from: Rob C
Guys, guys, nobody can teach you art, and if composition isn´t part of that, then nothing is.

Ciao - Rob C

True, but a good teacher can make you think critically about issues like your composition.
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: John Camp on June 08, 2009, 08:12:01 pm
Quote from: Rob C
Guys, guys, nobody can teach you art, and if composition isn´t part of that, then nothing is.

Ciao - Rob C


I don't have that strong a background in photo history, but I do have a background in painting history, and with a couple of exceptions, virtually every great painter had extraordinary instruction. If you have, say, a 98% correspondence between strong teaching and great artists, I think you might at least  suspect a connection.

JC
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: russell a on June 09, 2009, 01:11:42 am
Quote from: John Camp
I don't have that strong a background in photo history, but I do have a background in painting history, and with a couple of exceptions, virtually every great painter had extraordinary instruction. If you have, say, a 98% correspondence between strong teaching and great artists, I think you might at least  suspect a connection.

JC

I don't believe this is the case at all.  Read Why Art Cannot Be Taught by James Elkins.  What happens, in fact, is that connections are fabricated, usually by outside parties, in order to support pet hypotheses regarding "artistic lineage".  Elkins demonstrates how art schools are quick to cite students who have become successful as validating their programs, when, in fact, many of these students were drop-outs.  In the case of photography, starting with Callahan, many "name" photographers turned to teaching rather than commercial work for their income.  It then became a convenience to say "I studied with _____" as a way of claiming legitimacy, whereas the actual connection is suspect at best.  I've done that myself.  Callahan himself had grave doubts as to the efficacy of teaching.

Let me expand a bit on this.  Prior to the Modernist period (roughly from Manet on, opinions differ on either side, but Manet is a good median), there was a strong tradition of craft (grinding pigments, cooking up and preparing grounds, drawing from plaster models and life, etc. etc.) which was arguably a necessary prelude to creating a painting that wouldn't self-destruct in a generation.  The academies were not loci of strong creative influences but tech schools.  Apprenticeship was a possible opportunity for an acolyte to learn from a strong master and there may be cases where this can be demonstrated.  That, however was then.  The modernist period was supported by ready-to-go technology - portable tubes of paint, commercially prepared canvases, etc.  This had the effect of helping to unhook painters from the academies, which for the aims of Modernism, were increasingly regarded as onerous and unnecessary.  Artists were increasingly essentially self-taught and if exposed to a strong teacher, were as likely to take an antipodal position as not.  So, if one goes down the list of "great" Modernist painters it is hard to discern influences since, by definition their work was characterized by a violent break from the past.  Who then taught Picasso Cubism?  Mondrian De Stijl?  Who was Van Gogh's mentor?  Can one really find traces of Thomas Hart Benton in Pollock's drip paintings?  One could go on.  In today's art education practice, Elkins, cited above, is hard pressed to find anything that students learn from their teachers.  Maybe, if the school is marketing savvy, how to chat up influential people about art.

As regards composition in particular.  There exists an academic practice (rules, non-rules, koans, and superstitions)  that seems to have its center of gravity in commercial photo schools and which is preserved by camera clubs and individuals flogging workshops.  I remember flipping through a book of ~50 years of Magnum photography and not finding a single example of "the rule of thirds".  These rules break down in street photography practice, are irrelevant in post-modernist practice, have nothing to do with success in the marketplace, and are not even useful when the bounds of the frame move from the roughly rectilinear, as in panoramic presentation.  Having said that, it's quite alright for an individual to develop a personal sense of what composition means to him/her, to sample from the plethora of "rules". etc.  It's quite uncertain if "this" represents somethings that can be taught.  It would seem that the individual develops a personal relationship in the realm of what we call "intuitive".  What is nearly certain is that the results of a given image will violate someone's sense of "composition".  The reactions will range from "boringly predictable" to "wildly unbalanced".  Keep shooting, y'all.
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Ray on June 09, 2009, 08:14:35 am
Quote from: Rob C
Guys, guys, nobody can teach you art, and if composition isn´t part of that, then nothing is.

Ciao - Rob C

Rob,
Are you implying that composition cannot be taught?

On the other thread started by James Russell, you provided a link to a site of mostly fashion shots which inspired you. The first image I clicked on was by Nick Clements.

It was totally banal, yet the composition saved it. The composition is very simple and so strong that it dominates, and compensates for, its banality. In fact I preferred it to all the female fashion shots.

Am I allowed to reproduce it here? Surely he won't complain about the publicity.

[attachment=14405:Nick_Clements.jpg]




Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Rob C on June 09, 2009, 09:35:20 am
Quote from: Ray
Rob,
Are you implying that composition cannot be taught?

On the other thread started by James Russell, you provided a link to a site of mostly fashion shots which inspired you. The first image I clicked on was by Nick Clements.

It was totally banal, yet the composition saved it. The composition is very simple and so strong that it dominates, and compensates for, its banality. In fact I preferred it to all the female fashion shots.

Am I allowed to reproduce it here? Surely he won't complain about the publicity.

[attachment=14405:Nick_Clements.jpg]



Ray, the link was to the general photographers´agency; the intended one was, I think I mentioned, reached by bringing up the photographer list and clicking on Hans Feurer.

Unless I am  missing a veiled agenda, then I shall take your first question literally: yes, I do say that you cannot teach composition. You have a sense of visual balance or you do not; for another to try to "educate" that is for him to substitute it with his own, which can happen where there is already artistic ability but not where there is none to be found or corrupted, in which case a good time was had by all, and some departed a few bucks lighter in pocket. Seems fair.

I am not sure whether you are suggesting that I am understating, even denying, the importance of composition, design, balance, dynamism or whatever term rings your chimes for the same emotion; if you think that, I have either taken leave of my senses and am writing other than that which I believe, or you are simply playing devil´s advocate! The latter, I hope! My point in raising the profile of Feurer had nothing to do with the subject of composition but everything to do with that of beauty, though one does often depend on the other.

Rob C
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Bronislaus Janulis on June 09, 2009, 09:38:07 am
The so called "rules" of composition, are like most technical aspects of art or craft, basics that can and should be taught. Art comes from knowing when and how to ignore the "rules" in the interest of having something to say.

Being somewhat of an autodidact, I'm ambivalent about education, though I have to acknowledge any number of mentors. Some benefit, others rankle under external discipline; intense interest and a willingness to "listen" ( and all that that implies ) is probably of more value than who the mentor or master is.



P.S. The article is a good one.
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Rob C on June 09, 2009, 09:45:51 am
Quote from: John Camp
I don't have that strong a background in photo history, but I do have a background in painting history, and with a couple of exceptions, virtually every great painter had extraordinary instruction. If you have, say, a 98% correspondence between strong teaching and great artists, I think you might at least  suspect a connection.

JC


John, there is little conflict between the position you hold and my own; of course great instruction helps, but that is technical, not artistic. The artist already lives or exist within himself; the best that the outer influences can do is teach the mechanics, which is why I believe it so important that photo schools concentrate on the things that CAN be taught: Photoshop expertise, for one! Providing part-time work for pros is not a great idea other than for them. Where the pros can help, if they think it suits them, is via providing employment to future rivals, ever a delicate notion to swallow, especially as the most important thing they can give the student is the contact with the market, the pro´s own market.

Rob C
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: adam z on June 09, 2009, 09:51:45 am
I studied art at university for a year. You cannot teach someone without the natural ability to be a great artist IMO, but you can teach them enough for their work to be ok. Someone with natural talent can go "all the way" without training, but their skill will develop much more rapidly with a good knowledge base learned from studies. I learned a lot in that year - more than anything else, I learned about how we communicate through art. Not surprising as the name of the course was Bachelor of Visual Communications. What study does is takes years of stumbling around on your own to come up with ideas that many others already know which will enhance the strength of your image in communicating what it is you are trying to say through your work. Composition is one of these many things. Once you learn about composition (or any other artistic element in an image), you can then manipulate the commonly used conventions/rules to more effectively show your intent in your work, be that a photograph, a painting, or whatever. Hope that all makes sense!
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Rob C on June 09, 2009, 10:02:36 am
Quote from: russell a
I don't believe this is the case at all.  Read Why Art Cannot Be Taught by James Elkins.  What happens, in fact, is that connections are fabricated, usually by outside parties, in order to support pet hypotheses regarding "artistic lineage".  Elkins demonstrates how art schools are quick to cite students who have become successful as validating their programs, when, in fact, many of these students were drop-outs.  In the case of photography, starting with Callahan, many "name" photographers turned to teaching rather than commercial work for their income.  It then became a convenience to say "I studied with _____" as a way of claiming legitimacy, whereas the actual connection is suspect at best.  I've done that myself.


I have to second that about `drop-outs´as I suppose I must have been one myself. And I can remember the man and the night in the college when I personally saw the disconnection between the teacher and the greater world out there. We were doing something pointless in the class, such as shooting a portrait with a wooden 4x5 (in the days of the Hasselbald and Mamiya and Rollei, even!) whose lens had no shutter - expose via cloth cap from head of peasant - and I happened to mention my admiration for my contemporary, David Bailey. To my utter astonishment, the guy scoffed that, should his photography resemble Bailey´s he give up photography. Instead, I gave up on him and his benighted classes. Some years later, the studio where he had his day job folded, I did not.

A similar thing happened with my very last employer: once, pissed off over something I did not know, he told me I wouldn´t last six months on my own. Some years later we bumped into each other at a reception/slide show by Sam Haskins in a Glasgow hotel, courtesy a colour processing lab. The guy asked me how I was managing... I told him about having just come back from shooting a calendar in the Bahamas and how I was about to go off to Spain to do another within the week; funny how people mutter when they can´t allow themselves to say anything nice to you.

Rob C
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Bronislaus Janulis on June 09, 2009, 10:05:03 am
The illustrator, Andrew Loomis, in the book "Creative Illustration" has a very good, clear treatise on basic composition. For those "artistes" who can see past his being an illustrator.
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Ray on June 09, 2009, 11:18:40 am
Did someone once say that an artist paints or takes photographs because they have to, need to, want to. You can pontificate all you want about the merits of the results. It's only of concern if you need to make a good living with a good cash flow from your artistic endeavours.

In my view, there's a distinction to be made between catering to an audience, to sell a product for example, and simply doing what most interests you.

Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: John Camp on June 09, 2009, 11:34:01 am
Quote from: russell a
I don't believe this is the case at all.  Read Why Art Cannot Be Taught by James Elkins.  What happens, in fact, is that connections are fabricated, usually by outside parties, in order to support pet hypotheses regarding "artistic lineage".  Elkins demonstrates how art schools are quick to cite students who have become successful as validating their programs, when, in fact, many of these students were drop-outs.  In the case of photography, starting with Callahan, many "name" photographers turned to teaching rather than commercial work for their income.  It then became a convenience to say "I studied with _____" as a way of claiming legitimacy, whereas the actual connection is suspect at best.  I've done that myself.  Callahan himself had grave doubts as to the efficacy of teaching.

Let me expand a bit on this.  Prior to the Modernist period (roughly from Manet on, opinions differ on either side, but Manet is a good median), there was a strong tradition of craft (grinding pigments, cooking up and preparing grounds, drawing from plaster models and life, etc. etc.) which was arguably a necessary prelude to creating a painting that wouldn't self-destruct in a generation.  The academies were not loci of strong creative influences but tech schools.  Apprenticeship was a possible opportunity for an acolyte to learn from a strong master and there may be cases where this can be demonstrated.  That, however was then.  The modernist period was supported by ready-to-go technology - portable tubes of paint, commercially prepared canvases, etc.  This had the effect of helping to unhook painters from the academies, which for the aims of Modernism, were increasingly regarded as onerous and unnecessary.  Artists were increasingly essentially self-taught and if exposed to a strong teacher, were as likely to take an antipodal position as not.  So, if one goes down the list of "great" Modernist painters it is hard to discern influences since, by definition their work was characterized by a violent break from the past.  Who then taught Picasso Cubism?  Mondrian De Stijl?  Who was Van Gogh's mentor?  Can one really find traces of Thomas Hart Benton in Pollock's drip paintings?  One could go on.  In today's art education practice, Elkins, cited above, is hard pressed to find anything that students learn from their teachers.  Maybe, if the school is marketing savvy, how to chat up influential people about art.

I have read most of Elkins -- not just the book you cite -- and find him to be largely unhelpful, to say the least. It's mostly intellectual rumination in search of a controversy.
If you go down the list of great modernist painters, what you mostly find is strong influences from teachers. Van Gogh (besides being an art dealer for several years, a fine draftsman, and an articulate intellectual ) painted side-by-side with Pissarro, and that influence vastly changed Van Gogh's style; Pissarro, who also painted with Gauguin (who also painted with Van Gogh) and with Cezanne was credited as being a powerful teacher in addition to being a master in his own right, and even Cezanne, who was tight with credit, said so. Picasso's father was an art teacher, and Picasso was drawing under his father's eye, and later in formal art schools, almost until he was twenty -- in fact, by the time he was twenty, he'd essentially had fifteen years of art schooling; nobody exactly taught him Cubism, which he developed with Braque, but it began to develop after he saw a big exhibition of Cezanne paintings, and Picasso called Cezanne "The father of us all." Renoir was taught glass-painting as an apprentice; and he and Monet both spent time at academies, and painting together, as did Degas, who after spending time at the Ecole de Beaux Arts, spent several years studying in Italy. Modrian's father was a drawing instructor, his uncle a painter, and Modrian himself an art teacher. Pollock himself gave great credit to Benton. Just because a student doesn't replicate his teacher (and most great painters don't, which is why they are great) doesn't mean that he didn't learn anything. Rather than read somebody like Elkins, who writes polemics, it's very helpful to actually read art history and see who did what.
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: russell a on June 09, 2009, 12:02:52 pm
John:  Kudos to you for having facts to cite and not just opinions.  I would differentiate teachers and influencers, that painting side by side with someone is a different process than the student-teacher relationship.  And, I still say that it's a stretch to find much connection between their education and the signature styles of Modernist painters.  And, BTW I did graduate work in Art History and Philosophy until I discovered that these two camps dialog rarely and often badly.  And, yes, Elkins has been responsible for some utterly worthless endeavors, but I think he's on the mark with "Why Art Cannot Be Taught".
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Rob C on June 09, 2009, 12:39:57 pm
[quote name='John Camp' date='Jun 9 2009, 03:34 PM' post='290037']
 


"Van Gogh (besides being an art dealer for several years, a fine draftsman, and an articulate intellectual ) painted side-by-side with Pissarro, ..."

And I always thought it was Theo was the dealer!

Shows to goyou!

Rob C
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: joedecker on June 09, 2009, 12:44:05 pm
Quote from: Rob C
Unless I am  missing a veiled agenda, then I shall take your first question literally: yes, I do say that you cannot teach composition. You have a sense of visual balance or you do not; for another to try to "educate" that is for him to substitute it with his own, which can happen where there is already artistic ability but not where there is none to be found or corrupted, in which case a good time was had by all, and some departed a few bucks lighter in pocket. Seems fair.

I really can't agree with you here, watching my experiences both as a student and teacher over the years. I do think you can guide students to better composition. I'm pretty dismissive of top-down analyses of compositional rules, while I think one can and should mention visual balance, how our eyes gravitate to highlights, that's not what I mean by teaching composition. I believe instead what you do is work with a student, or better yet a group of students, by having them create work and then discuss it. On the most simplistic end, I recall one instructor projecting and criticizing 150 images in a session at one point and demonstrating that a tighter composition would have been more effective on 90 or so of them, I remember as well how many fewer such examples there were the next day.  I'm sure that this simple example, by itself, will only seem to confirm your point, though, but there's more to it than that. Once people are through a few consistent sort of basic mistakes, something else quickly becomes apparent in my experience, the enormous differences between people's photographic eyes.  Effective teaching of composition can and must begin with that understanding, and then seek to mentor the artist without overruling her or him on how to better realize their vision, but quite a bit can be learned as well by watching other students go through the same process.

My own students regularly produce good work that wouldn't be a type of "good work" that I'd ever produce, the same has been true for some of the few very effective teachers I've studied under.   Some of my students have, as well, been clearly "better than me" in some ways.  I believe it's easy for a teacher's eye to end up overruling a student's (and ego is a huge risk here), but I strongly disagree that that's always true, and I suspect we'd both agree that it's not desirable.  This takes not only a gentle hand at the controls, but also discussion of work with the student and preferably other students starting from "what were you trying to do hear", engaging the students Socratically, and then facilitating the translation of often difficult-to-communicate responses of myself, the student, and other students into concrete advice.

Anyway, my two cents.  
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Bronislaus Janulis on June 09, 2009, 12:45:45 pm
I agree that influence and Master/student should be viewed as two different things. A minor quibble; Van Gogh was, as a young man a clerk for Goupil & Co.; I doubt he was involved in buying and selling, though he was certainly exposed to paintings more intimately than possible other wise.

John Paul Caponigro's deconstruction of image, is a classic painters technique, ranging from viewing a scene through strongly colored glass, ( shows the values ) to squinting. ( Blurs the composition into simple elements ).
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: joedecker on June 09, 2009, 12:46:04 pm
Quote from: joedecker
"what were you trying to do hear", engaging the students Socratically, and then facilitating the translation of often difficult-to-communicate responses of myself, the student, and other students into concrete advice.

(please excuse "hear" and the other typos.  Mea culpa.)
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Bronislaus Janulis on June 09, 2009, 12:58:09 pm
Joe Decker,

I compliment you, as an exceptional teacher.

Bron

PS.  The Photocrati site is great, and I've bookmarked your site for a longer look, when I'm not trying to work. The joys of self-employment.

Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: John Camp on June 09, 2009, 04:09:44 pm
Quote from: Bronislaus Janulis
I agree that influence and Master/student should be viewed as two different things. A minor quibble; Van Gogh was, as a young man a clerk for Goupil & Co.; I doubt he was involved in buying and selling, though he was certainly exposed to paintings more intimately than possible other wise.

John Paul Caponigro's deconstruction of image, is a classic painters technique, ranging from viewing a scene through strongly colored glass, ( shows the values ) to squinting. ( Blurs the composition into simple elements ).

Van Gogh's letters do not discuss selling, as far as I know, but a man who lived with him in the same rooming house said that he was a "salesman" and bookkeeper for Goupil ("Van Gogh: A Retrospective.") Several of Van Gogh's letter from London, to Theo, allude to new exhibits going up, and it sounds very much like he was involved. He actually did quite well at Goupil at first, only changing directions after a fail loved interest in London.

The reason oil painters need teachers before they can get good is that oil effects can be explained and demonstrated quite easily, but learning them on your own is terribly difficult, even with book-study: the best way to learn it is to see it, and I suspect the ONLY way to learn it comprehensively is to have it demonstrated to you. It took decades of work before oil painting reached its early peak with painters like Van Eyck; there was simply too much work to do, that is not obvious, and can only be developed through protracted experimentation. Once the experiments are done, the techniques can easily be passed on, which is what teachers do, among other things.

There are painters who learned essentially without instruction, and we usually call them things like "Outsiders" or "Primitives." Henri Rousseau, was one-such, and a fine artist (though he hung out with great painters, and probably got a lot of advice); but an exception. Grandma Moses, another exception, said such wonderful things as "I've never seen blue snow," precisely because she'd never had any training, and therefore never painted a shadow on snow.

JC
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Rob C on June 09, 2009, 05:01:42 pm
Quote from: John Camp
Grandma Moses, another exception, said such wonderful things as "I've never seen blue snow," precisely because she'd never had any training, and therefore never painted a shadow on snow.

JC


John, you have renewed my faith in my fellow man!

As you might have been unable to avoid reading on these pages, I have developed a late-in-life renewed interest in painting (my love prior to photography) and have alluded to this rebirth as my Grandma Moses era (dare I say agenda?).

This is the first time I have known for sure that anybody knew what in hell I was drifting on about - I was starting to imagine I had imagined it all myself!

Ciao- Rob C
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Misirlou on June 09, 2009, 07:13:36 pm
I have a little formal art education, and I have to say that some of the things I was taught very early about compostion have been helpful to me all along. I might have figured them all out on my own, but I believe composition is about expectations, and having some of that laid out for my by the more experienced artists was a nice jump start. As viewers who have seen tens of thousands of images, we "expect" to be presented things in certain ways. If we think about those in a systematic way, we might realize there are ways to use the expectations of our viewers to our artistic advantage.

When I was young, I was passionate about painting. One time, I deliberately composed a painting of a nude to impart a sense of illicit voyeurism on the viewer. I built a canvas of unusual proportions, defined the negatve spaces in a speciifc way, etc. At the show, I discussed my results with other trained artists, and just some folks who walked in casually. I got a sense that my compositional tricks worked exactly as I had intended. That gave me a lot of artistic confidence. Very valuable, essentially academic exercise.

So I love to read about composition. You never know how someone else's thought process might give you a new way to see. Living in Japan for three years, I tried to understand how Japanese artists approached composition from a different cultural background from my own. Among many other things I learned, I decided that we are strongly influenced by the manner in which we read. For example, in the west, we usually read from left to right, and from top to bottom. Think about that the next time you look at classical Japanese art. Think about how you might tell a more interesting story, just by telling it in a different direction. If I "teach" that to some young photographer, will that turn them into an "artist?" Perhaps not. But, it might get a technician interested in becoming an artist. Who knows?
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: barryfitzgerald on June 10, 2009, 05:10:13 am
It might have helped if he had used a "normal" photo. Unless of course there happens to be a place where rocks float above the sand in a desert  
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Schewe on June 10, 2009, 11:47:09 am
Quote from: barryfitzgerald
It might have helped if he had used a "normal" photo.

Why?
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: John Camp on June 10, 2009, 12:20:15 pm
Quote from: Schewe
Why?

Because a lot of things that are considered normal practice in discussing composition don't work very well when rocks float above the desert. For example, one basic of composition is simply to put darker areas toward the bottom of a composition, or, say, beneath the feet of subjects, the same way shadows are usually shown *below* noses and other facial features. Doing this makes it easier to *read* a photograph or a painting. That's because, in the standard world view, the sun is often the source of light and it is usually shining down, as are most other light sources. When lights shine up, or directly sideways, we immediately read artificiality into the scene, and sometimes have a hard time reading it at all. Low shadow areas make it seem that people and other objects are grounded normally -- are not floating -- and in probably 99% of photos, that's desirable. This is not to say that you *can't* do what Mr. Caponigro does; of course you can. There *are* things that can be demonstrated by floating boulders -- and light *can* come from anywhere -- but it perhaps seriously non-standard views would not be the best example to use in a basic composition course, which is what is being proposed.
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: DarkPenguin on June 10, 2009, 12:32:48 pm
Wouldn't showing why the non standard view works also be of value?
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Schewe on June 10, 2009, 01:53:03 pm
Quote from: John Camp
Because a lot of things that are considered normal practice in discussing composition don't work very well when rocks float above the desert.

I guess the exercise of reducing the image to it's essentials escaped you?

Pretend you didn't see the image in the beginning of the article...does that really have an impact on the validity of the article?
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: John Camp on June 10, 2009, 02:04:49 pm
Quote from: Schewe
I guess the exercise of reducing the image to it's essentials escaped you?

Pretend you didn't see the image in the beginning of the article...does that really have an impact on the validity of the article?

What? The images and the examples ARE the article. The words just attempt to give you an approach to the images and examples. We're talking about composition of images, not composition of paragraphs. Maybe you should spend some time with the article; you could learn something.
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Schewe on June 10, 2009, 03:20:52 pm
Quote from: John Camp
Maybe you should spend some time with the article; you could learn something.

I have...in the article main, he NEVER mentions the floating rocks image...in the exercise of reducing the image to the essentials, which image is used is irrelevant. So if you can't see the forest for the trees, JP's images are irrelevant to his article.
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: laughingbear on June 10, 2009, 05:23:02 pm
Coincidently, I am shooting since a few days with the alpha 900 and started stitching some pictures. One of the stitches went wrong, and I sat there not very happy staring at the messed up file on my screen, when something hit me.... there is so much information and detail.... there just has to be something in there which is half way decent.

So, out of the massive 12 stitch file, showing the ocean, the distant hills, the rocky beach, meadows etc, I started cropping, looking for the essential thing that I saw initially in the whole scene, and it got me thinking about a title at the same time.

The exercise mentioned is useful imho, and it reminds me a little to the Bauhaus school, Prof. Harald Mante, Vincent Weber student, who studied with Kandinsky, has described similiar in his book THE PHOTOGRAPH.

The experiecne with a messed up stitch has got me thinking, I will stitch more, and then crop the Heck out of it to find that special little gem which eventually motivated me to shoot the scene.


Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: barryfitzgerald on June 10, 2009, 07:29:18 pm
On the floating rocks thing.
I have always considered composition as the photographer being selective in his position, angles, choice of focal length etc etc, there is a long list.
Starting with a doctored image IMO does not help the article..simply because by doing a photoshop job to start with, you are already making the composition fit what you want. Bit like an artist with oil paints, and I know a few..they frequently "move stuff about" to make it just as they want.

Photographers do not have that liberty, well not in the real world. Call me old fashioned if you want  
We either have an article on photoshop as a compositional tool (and it can be)
Or we have one on a basic and fundamental photographic technique.


Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: adam z on June 10, 2009, 07:58:29 pm
Composition is about the way the elements come together in a photo to create a pleasing (even if only to the photographer) image. By pleasing I don't necessarily mean nice or harmoniou, the composition may be used to create tention etc too. If talking about composition in general, then it is in my eyes about the final image. Therefore any image can be used, even if it involves heavy photoshopping. If the topic is more specific, like composing a shot in camera - there are obviously some differences for technical reasons. If those floating rocks were attached to the ground with a metal post, I am guessing no one would complain - but we are talking about the positioning of elements in a frame, not the technicalities of how they got there.
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: barryfitzgerald on June 10, 2009, 08:06:05 pm
The technicalities of how they got there is important to some of us.
Composition is something that more often than not takes place "before" the shutter is fired.
The most useful photos aka composition wise,are probably the ones that didn't work, not the ones that do.

Yes art can be used to illustrate the point (and this is digital art), just maybe for an intro article something a bit more normal would have been a better choice. But that is open to debate..as everything is.

Regardless..I shall be interested to see where this series goes.
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Schewe on June 10, 2009, 08:53:15 pm
Quote from: barryfitzgerald
On the floating rocks thing.
I have always considered composition as the photographer being selective in his position, angles, choice of focal length etc etc, there is a long list.


The whole article could have been written with a painting or drawing as the article illustration or no friggin' illustration at all. You are letting your prejudice get in the way learning something. The fact that you have a hang up about manipulated images has zero to do with what the article is trying to get across and everything yo do with your own attitudes (which may be educational in a different way).

If people are dismissing the article because JP is not a "traditional photographer" that speaks volumes about closed mindedness–which to my way of thinking is the antithesis of art and creativity...
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: barryfitzgerald on June 10, 2009, 09:19:27 pm
We shall have to agree to disagree then.
But I would have expected you to be a tad more civil in your response. I have no hang ups, nor is it your place to call me "closed minded"
We work the way we want to, and that's it. I don't tell  you how to go about your picture taking, and I don't expect you to lecture me either.
I cannot for the life of me see how any photographer gets any degree of satisfaction with wholesale and comprehensive manipulation, to the degree of removing or adding elements. But that is nothing more than my own personal view..and it's up to everyone to do what they like.

What I don't like however is this assumption that everyone must "follow the line" and do mega manipulation. What is the goal here, to make us all produce work that is alike? That's not what photography is about, it's about personal taste, and ideas.

I have a lot of respect for talented folks who do digital art..and artists as a whole, even if it's not for me. Just don't go telling me it has much to do with photography.

Truth is for me, I find the road less travelled is more fun. I could sit there read all the tutorials and spend most of my days doing pp. Making the perfect image out of various composites. But that defeats the point of photography..and IMO it's the "easy way out" Mass market manufactured for crowd pleasing.

I'll take close minded and traditional thanks very much. It's a lot more fun going out and reading the light, finding the angles..not making it up on a computer as you go along. Again my own personal view..nothing more or less. Nor did I dismiss the article.
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: John Camp on June 10, 2009, 09:27:41 pm
Quote from: Schewe
The whole article could have been written with a painting or drawing as the article illustration or no friggin' illustration at all. You are letting your prejudice get in the way learning something. The fact that you have a hang up about manipulated images has zero to do with what the article is trying to get across and everything yo do with your own attitudes (which may be educational in a different way).

If people are dismissing the article because JP is not a "traditional photographer" that speaks volumes about closed mindedness–which to my way of thinking is the antithesis of art and creativity...

Interesting. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion ("or no friggin' illustration at all") you would seem to be making the case that photographs are not necessary to such lessons. An unusual position for a photographer. I'd take exactly the opposite position -- JP could have posted only the photo and the illustrations, and I would have understood what he was getting at. The words alone wouldn't do that for me.

I never dismissed anything because JP is not a traditional photographer -- I was simply making the point (if it wasn't clear before) that using an extremely advanced example of composition is somewhat problematic when the lesson is supposed to be about basic composition. For example, in the photo under consideration, in most basic composition courses, the instructor would urge you to understand where the light is coming from. In this example, the light doesn't seem to be coming from any particular place. There are  shadows, all parallel, which would suggest that the light source is far away to the right and small (like the sun), and yet, the backs of some of the boulders are lit from top to bottom, and some of them are lit mostly on the bottom or one side, and one isn't backlit at all. Are we supposed to understand that a guy with an enormous reflector is behind us to the left?

That JP does this doesn't bother me a whit -- I only question it in the context of a basic composition lesson. It's not a question of "art" or "closed mindedness" or what's proper, it's a question of teaching technique. A guy could be the Rembrandt of the photographic world, and if he can't teach, then it would be a waste of my time to listen to him. But to tell you the truth, I am interested enough in the enormously complex problems of composition that I eagerly look forward to what JP has to say in further lessons. But I myself might have taken a different photo, or even a painting, to explain the basics.

JC
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Schewe on June 10, 2009, 11:09:55 pm
Quote from: barryfitzgerald
What I don't like however is this assumption that everyone must "follow the line" and do mega manipulation. What is the goal here, to make us all produce work that is alike


That's you bringing your own baggage...the point I was making is that the fact that an image is manipulated it totally irrelevant to the discussion of composition and to try to make relevant it is close minded...who cares how an image is created? If you do, it's your own hang up I don't share.
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Schewe on June 10, 2009, 11:14:55 pm
Quote from: John Camp
Interesting. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion ("or no friggin' illustration at all") you would seem to be making the case that photographs are not necessary to such lessons. An unusual position for a photographer. I'd take exactly the opposite position -- JP could have posted only the photo and the illustrations, and I would have understood what he was getting at. The words alone wouldn't do that for me.

Maybe JP should have simply showed the FINAL image in the Reducing Images to The Essentials...The directional vectors is what the article is all about. The fact that the image was a manipulated assembly is totally irrelevant and to give any credence to the manner in which the image was created completely misses the point. Scribbles on paper is all you need to talk about composition. Ironically, I've seen JP make lots of scribbles on paper when designing compositions for photographs that may take years to create. He does indeed do the composition well before ever doing the photograph.
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Rob C on June 11, 2009, 04:11:46 am
Quote from: laughingbear
Coincidently, I am shooting since a few days with the alpha 900 and started stitching some pictures. One of the stitches went wrong, and I sat there not very happy staring at the messed up file on my screen, when something hit me.... there is so much information and detail.... there just has to be something in there which is half way decent.

So, out of the massive 12 stitch file, showing the ocean, the distant hills, the rocky beach, meadows etc, I started cropping, looking for the essential thing that I saw initially in the whole scene, and it got me thinking about a title at the same time.

The exercise mentioned is useful imho, and it reminds me a little to the Bauhaus school, Prof. Harald Mante, Vincent Weber student, who studied with Kandinsky, has described similiar in his book THE PHOTOGRAPH.

The experiecne with a messed up stitch has got me thinking, I will stitch more, and then crop the Heck out of it to find that special little gem which eventually motivated me to shoot the scene.

Postglacial is a very pleasing shot; why would you want to quit your system whilst you are ahead?

But, on the matter of stitching and then undoing, women only do that if things go wrong and the machine catches and their material goes squint. Why not save yourself the trouble of all that work and just look a little longer before you shoot and then you will find the jewel in the sand first time? It´s not as if you have to wheedle an expression out of somebody! Learn from the ladies: they are heaps smarter than they let you think; smarter than most of us guys!

Rob C
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Rob C on June 11, 2009, 04:38:49 am
I´m afraid that reading what´s going down here seems, to me, a little like the closing of ranks of a group of friends with a very vested commercial interest in the group´s status quo. Fine, but can we be subtle about it and avoid the histrionics?

As you all know by now, I believe that you cannot teach composition any more than you can teach me to sing. I have tried all my life and still can´t do it. It boils down to a God-given ability, not necessarily a talent. Talent, for me, would imply doing it very very well.

The chat about painting and learning how to do it is about the technical aspects of preparing surfaces, mixing the paint/colours and yes, teaching is obviously going to be a great help and a time saver. But that doesn´t give you an ounce of talent, only technique, which the earlier mentioned house painter could quickly learn without becomng an artist. Similarly with photography: you can teach somebody how to focus, expose (even digitally, I am hoping) and choose a focal length. But you are not teaching him how to see or be creative, just technically proficient. As with the wonderful Meerkat.com commercial, so close yet so far apart!

This marks yet another day that I have failed to get my ass into gear (so far) and go try out the new Nikkor 180mm I managed to get in place of that dreadful 24-70 zoom that I bought in a moment of post-male-menopausal anxiety. How we suffer when thirty-nine and holding.

Rob C
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: barryfitzgerald on June 11, 2009, 04:58:10 am
Quote from: Schewe
That's you bringing your own baggage...the point I was making is that the fact that an image is manipulated it totally irrelevant to the discussion of composition and to try to make relevant it is close minded...who cares how an image is created? If you do, it's your own hang up I don't share.

Artists and photographers do not share the same techniques in composition. The distinction is a photographer is selective in composition with what he has, what is really there, being selective with what he picks for the final image....most artists are making it up..making it fit what they want, moving things around, adding and removing areas etc. That is the crucial point. Different skills for both.

Having an article based on art (whatever type), is only going to be of so much use to photographers.
On having a hang up, you are right I do..I like my photography to look like photographs..not a photoshop rendered creation. I make no apologies for that. Rather sad that some are pushing beyond the boundaries of photography, in a desperate attempt to be different, yet ending up mostly repeating what the majority of folks are doing. I have no problems with enhancement..I will never add or remove elements of a photo, closed minded you call it, I call it "choice"









Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Ray on June 11, 2009, 06:30:35 am
Jeez! These arguments are so convoluted, I don't think anyone can make sense of them.
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: russell a on June 11, 2009, 07:48:15 am
Quote from: Ray
Jeez! These arguments are so convoluted, I don't think anyone can make sense of them.

Thus the state of art writing in general.  One cannot prove anything as regards truth, beauty, authenticity, or what-you-got in Art.  So, what one does is twist words into the shape of a club and beat one's adversaries over the head with them.  Those with sufficient charisma may be able to get others to drink their Kool-Aid.  Would you like that with fries?
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Ray on June 11, 2009, 08:38:32 am
Quote from: russell a
Thus the state of art writing in general.  One cannot prove anything as regards truth, beauty, authenticity, or what-you-got in Art.  So, what one does is twist words into the shape of a club and beat one's adversaries over the head with them.  Those with sufficient charisma may be able to get others to drink their Kool-Aid.  Would you like that with fries?

I can't help but agree, russell a.  
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: EdRosch on June 11, 2009, 10:11:07 am
Quote from: Ray
Jeez! These arguments are so convoluted, I don't think anyone can make sense of them.

Quote from: russell a
Thus the state of art writing in general.  One cannot prove anything as regards truth, beauty, authenticity, or what-you-got in Art.  So, what one does is twist words into the shape of a club and beat one's adversaries over the head with them.  Those with sufficient charisma may be able to get others to drink their Kool-Aid.  Would you like that with fries?

Quote from: Ray
I can't help but agree, russell a.  

Me Too!!! and I would point out that there is a consequence in that I would imagine that I'm not the only visitor who might have something to contribute to a civil discourse who chooses to do so only very infrequently for the above reasons.

As I am posting I will mention that I've read Mr. Caponigro's essay several times.  I do not believe that he intended it as a basic primer on composition.  I do believe that he intended to give us something to think about without predefining his answers.  I would also comment that he has a very dense rich writing style- like really good fudge, you need to consume it in small bytes taking time to savor the complexity.

And as I seem to be on a roll.......... I've been a serious photographer for over forty years and have been paying a lot of attention to the best of what's out there, including the work of whomever the current 'Masters' are for longer than that.  My opinion is that for at least the last half century, Photography has been caught in a self referential rut.  The vast majority of the current work that is being admired and imitated today would fit right in to the 1950's without raising an eyebrow.  Caponigro is one of the very few actively looking for a way out of this continuous tail chasing and for that reason alone I feel whatever he's up to is worthy of attention.  I sincerely hope he continues to contribute more essays here.

Ed
artislens.com  (http://www.artislens.com/)
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Rob C on June 11, 2009, 10:14:09 am
Had fries with lunch today, but turbot without yesterday. What´s wrong with fries as long as they don´t come out of a factory? And they are fried in pure olive oil?

But I´m feeling generous this afternoon: was offered a one-man show for April, so most things will be greeted with a smile for the next few hours or so. Or at least until I realise just what a mounting operation  (yes, a real pun!) I have set up for myself. Seems the back/whites swung it. Hmmmm. Makes that HP B9180 seem like a good idea at last!

Rob C
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Rob C on June 11, 2009, 10:17:41 am
Quote from: EdRosch
I've been a serious photographer for over forty years and have been paying a lot of attention to the best of what's out there, including the work of whomever the current 'Masters' are for longer than that.  My opinion is that for at least the last half century, Photography has been caught in a self referential rut.  The vast majority of the current work that is being admired and imitated today would fit right in to the 1950's without raising an eyebrow.  Ed
artislens.com  (http://www.artislens.com/)




Thank you for unconsciously (I think) confirming my definition of the time I think of as the Golden Age.

Rob C
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: larsrc on June 11, 2009, 11:31:51 am
Quote from: Rob C
I´m afraid that reading what´s going down here seems, to me, a little like the closing of ranks of a group of friends with a very vested commercial interest in the group´s status quo. Fine, but can we be subtle about it and avoid the histrionics?

As you all know by now, I believe that you cannot teach composition any more than you can teach me to sing. I have tried all my life and still can´t do it. It boils down to a God-given ability, not necessarily a talent. Talent, for me, would imply doing it very very well.

I've been following this discussion quietly so far, since I had nothing solid to back my viewpoint on; thank you for supplying something:)

I come from a fairly song-heavy culture, but didn't sing much up until University, where I found more people who like to get drunk and sing random songs. I liked singing, and did so at any occasion I could get away with, but when trying to sing in a choir, I got sent to a song teacher who gave up on me. My wife tried in vain to teach me -- she is a great singer, and could tell that I liked to sing, but she didn't know what to do. I tried some evening classes with little effect. We then happened to find a new song teacher for her (one whose title was literally "elite song teacher") and I went along for a trial session just for kicks. He taught my wife for an hour first, while I just watched and listened, but when he got to me, I could suddenly sing -- producing song rather than some oddly-distorted speech and hitting the notes about 85% percent of the time rather than 15%, according to my wife. While I will probably never be the next Pavarotti or even the next Susan Boyle, I did find that a good teacher could teach me to sing at least well. He also improved my wife's already excellent singing by quite a bit. The totally proved to us that anybody can learn to sing (outside of actual physical damage to the vocal chords).

So when you say that one cannot teach composition any more than one can teach you to sing, I can only conclude that a good teacher of composition would be able to teach it. It is, like any other learning activity, easier when you are young, thus allowing some to reach levels that later starters couldn't match in a lifetime. It is likely -- though of course I cannot prove it -- that many of the great masters of various arts have simply grown up in environments that taught them their arts implicitly while they were able to learn a lot very quickly. Much the same effect is seen in Denmark where, even though university education including stipends is available to everybody, those who go to university have a strong overrepresentation of children of academics. Those children have grown up with reading for pleasure and discussions of academic subjects being everpresent and simply got a head start on those skills.

I cannot believe that a sense of composition, anymore than any other skill, is something that is magically endowed to some and not to others, and that nothing they do can change that.  Given the right environment, we can all learn, though some at faster paces than others.

A question that has plagued me all through this discussion: For those who say that composition cannot be taught: Would you also say that it cannot be learned?

-Lars

P.S. If you don't believe what I say about the song teacher, you're welcome to come to Denmark and try him. His English is quite good.
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Morris Taub on June 11, 2009, 12:31:37 pm
Quote from: Rob C
Had fries with lunch today, but turbot without yesterday. What´s wrong with fries as long as they don´t come out of a factory? And they are fried in pure olive oil?

But I´m feeling generous this afternoon: was offered a one-man show for April, so most things will be greeted with a smile for the next few hours or so. Or at least until I realise just what a mounting operation  (yes, a real pun!) I have set up for myself. Seems the back/whites swung it. Hmmmm. Makes that HP B9180 seem like a good idea at last!

Rob C

congratulations Rob...would love to see some of the work when it's ready if you feel like posting some here for us...

also, is that april 2010?...i guess...gives you plenty time to get comfy mounting images (photos) as you like...

think i'll have a glass of wine tonight in your honor...

M

ps...i used to love the thin, long, mushy (slightly crispy outside), salty, burger king fries when i was a kid...man, feels good to finally admit that in public...

pss...and just to keep this post on topic I kinda agree with this in general terms...

"Thus the state of art writing in general. One cannot prove anything as regards truth, beauty, authenticity, or what-you-got in Art. So, what one does is twist words into the shape of a club and beat one's adversaries over the head with them. Those with sufficient charisma may be able to get others to drink their Kool-Aid. Would you like that with fries?"

i do think you can show someone the door to 'composition'...they have to walk through it...if the resulting work can be called art one day, up to a panel of sanctified judges to decide...what, the 5 thousand or so professional art seller's, gallery owners, art critiques, museum curators, etc. that tell the world what's hot and what's not...
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: seangirard on June 11, 2009, 01:31:01 pm
Geez.

The guy showed at least 10 techniques for reducing and analyzing a composition. I think if we all went back to our libraries to select an image with which to demonstrate those same techniques equally well we might find it is not so easy to pick one.

-sean
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on June 11, 2009, 01:39:48 pm
Quote from: larsrc
I've been following this discussion quietly so far, since I had nothing solid to back my viewpoint on; thank you for supplying something:)

I come from a fairly song-heavy culture, but didn't sing much up until University, where I found more people who like to get drunk and sing random songs. I liked singing, and did so at any occasion I could get away with, but when trying to sing in a choir, I got sent to a song teacher who gave up on me. My wife tried in vain to teach me -- she is a great singer, and could tell that I liked to sing, but she didn't know what to do. I tried some evening classes with little effect. We then happened to find a new song teacher for her (one whose title was literally "elite song teacher") and I went along for a trial session just for kicks. He taught my wife for an hour first, while I just watched and listened, but when he got to me, I could suddenly sing -- producing song rather than some oddly-distorted speech and hitting the notes about 85% percent of the time rather than 15%, according to my wife. While I will probably never be the next Pavarotti or even the next Susan Boyle, I did find that a good teacher could teach me to sing at least well. He also improved my wife's already excellent singing by quite a bit. The totally proved to us that anybody can learn to sing (outside of actual physical damage to the vocal chords).

So when you say that one cannot teach composition any more than one can teach you to sing, I can only conclude that a good teacher of composition would be able to teach it. It is, like any other learning activity, easier when you are young, thus allowing some to reach levels that later starters couldn't match in a lifetime. It is likely -- though of course I cannot prove it -- that many of the great masters of various arts have simply grown up in environments that taught them their arts implicitly while they were able to learn a lot very quickly. Much the same effect is seen in Denmark where, even though university education including stipends is available to everybody, those who go to university have a strong overrepresentation of children of academics. Those children have grown up with reading for pleasure and discussions of academic subjects being everpresent and simply got a head start on those skills.

I cannot believe that a sense of composition, anymore than any other skill, is something that is magically endowed to some and not to others, and that nothing they do can change that.  Given the right environment, we can all learn, though some at faster paces than others.

A question that has plagued me all through this discussion: For those who say that composition cannot be taught: Would you also say that it cannot be learned?

-Lars

P.S. If you don't believe what I say about the song teacher, you're welcome to come to Denmark and try him. His English is quite good.
Bravo, Lars! Well said!

-Eric


Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Schewe on June 11, 2009, 02:25:18 pm
Quote from: Rob C
I´m afraid that reading what´s going down here seems, to me, a little like the closing of ranks of a group of friends with a very vested commercial interest in the group´s status quo. Fine, but can we be subtle about it and avoid the histrionics?


Huh?

Yes, JP is a friend and colleague but that has nothing to do with pointing out that some of the comments by people complaining about his use of a manipulated image makes the article invalid are, uh stooopid hardly reaches the level of closing of the ranks (the what, rank of two?)

As for the inability for you to learn how to sing having something to do with learning about composition, that's pretty silly as well. One is a physical activity and the other is intellectual.

You must have a pretty dim view of any educational activities huh? Shame you can't seem to learn anything...
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: lightstand on June 11, 2009, 03:01:13 pm
First I don't want to highjack this thread, but I do want to thank Mr Caponigro for presenting his article. It is very cool that someone of his caliber is writing informative articles on topics that have nothing to do with equipment reviews and thanks to Michael for publishing them.

Very appreciated & valued. thanks, Jeff
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Rob C on June 11, 2009, 05:00:52 pm
Quote from: Schewe
Huh?

Yes, JP is a friend and colleague but that has nothing to do with pointing out that some of the comments by people complaining about his use of a manipulated image makes the article invalid are, uh stooopid hardly reaches the level of closing of the ranks (the what, rank of two?)

As for the inability for you to learn how to sing having something to do with learning about composition, that's pretty silly as well. One is a physical activity and the other is intellectual.

You must have a pretty dim view of any educational activities huh? Shame you can't seem to learn anything...


Love you too, Schewe, thanks for proving my point.

Rob C
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: barryfitzgerald on June 11, 2009, 05:25:55 pm
I guess we all have to agree or else face the consequences of Mr Schewe  
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: daws on June 11, 2009, 07:53:39 pm
Quote from: EdRosch
I would also comment that he has a very dense rich writing style- like really good fudge, you need to consume it in small bytes taking time to savor the complexity.
Then could Ed or anyone who has digested it (meaning no disrespect to Mr. Caponigro, whose work I admire), might they explain to me what passages such as the following mean?

Quote
Composition is an extremely complex subject. In any composition there are many variables at work simultaneously. Each variable exerts its own force, contributing to the whole. Each element influences the other, creating a cascading chain of action, reaction, interaction. The degree to which one variable is emphasized over or used to modify another gives the viewer visual clues about the creator’s ways of seeing and intentions. Visual communicators dynamically combine these components to make statements. Versatility with many strategies enables visual communicators to more successful in varied situations and to make more varied statements. Consistency, strength, and distinctive (sometimes novel) approach indicates a signature style, communicating information not only about the subjects but also about the creator of an image or images. It’s all about the quality of the relationships you create.

Again meaning no disrespect, I found the images to be inspiring and instructive but the writing to be belaboring the obvious.

I mean, "Versatility with many strategies enables visual communicators to [be] more successful in varied situations and to make more varied statements"...?

 

...Maybe it's just me?









Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Schewe on June 11, 2009, 08:17:31 pm
Quote from: daws
I mean, "Versatility with many strategies enables visual communicators to [be] more successful in varied situations and to make more varied statements"...?

 

...Maybe it's just me?


Naw...JP went to Yale where they make an art out of endeavoring to obscure–or is it  endeavoring to obviate (never could remember which...

As for the above it means if you have experience with various approaches that gives you more options to say what you want to say...spice adds variety.
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Bronislaus Janulis on June 11, 2009, 08:30:29 pm
Quote from: Schewe
Naw...JP went to Yale where they make an art out of endeavoring to obscure–or is it  endeavoring to obviate (never could remember which...

As for the above it means if you have experience with various approaches that gives you more options to say what you want to say...spice adds variety.



Obfuscate is the term you were looking for. As in eschew it, unless from Yale.
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: laughingbear on June 11, 2009, 10:20:00 pm
For Adorno, the art object and the aesthetic experience of the art object contain a truth-content. Truth-content is a cognitive content "which is not exhausted either by the subjective intentions of its producers or by the subjective responses of its consumers," and that may be revealed through analysis. Whereas Kant conceives of beauty as a subjective experience, Adorno suggests that beauty mediates between subject and object. Beauty is contained in the cognitive or truth-content of works of art.

None of them studied in Yale.  
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Schewe on June 11, 2009, 10:24:42 pm
Quote from: Bronislaus Janulis
Obfuscate is the term you were looking for. As in eschew it, unless from Yale.


Yeah...that's it!

:~)
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: joedecker on June 12, 2009, 12:46:56 am
Quote from: Bronislaus Janulis
I compliment you, as an exceptional teacher.

Bron

PS.  The Photocrati site is great, and I've bookmarked your site for a longer look, when I'm not trying to work. The joys of self-employment.

Thanks, Bron!  

And I'm glad you're enjoying Photocrati Eric did a great job putting together the folks there, he and the other folks I've talked to there have been a real pleasure to work with, I'm glad you're enjoying!

--Joe
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: sms60 on June 12, 2009, 09:07:27 am
"Conversation will be stimulated. I hope my material will become a catalyst for material you in turn generate together."

Mission accomplished.
Title: Caponigro on Composition
Post by: Rob C on June 13, 2009, 05:31:31 am
As this has assumed the mantle of the entertainment industry, let me give you one of my favourite quotations from that splendid Scottish movie of recent years, A-pucked Lips Noo, where the highland chief stands by the shore of his loch, pulls his sporran up from below his knees and breathes out those immortal words: I love the smell of snake oil in the morning!

Unforgettable stuff of legend.

Ciao - Rob C