Alain Briot's 'An introduction to composition'

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Sam, Ronny, John and Bob: Your latest posts make some excellent points.

If I could write an essay that would stir up as much commentary as Alain's I would be delighted.

IMHO, a good teacher of photographic composition can hope to accomplish two things:

One is to show the student the what and why of conventional, traditional ideas about composition ("rule of thirds", when to center a subject, etc.), and Alain has promised to do this in one of the later essays in this series.

The other is to stimulate the student to throw away all the "rules" and, as someone said (either Edward Weston or Minor White -- my memory is faulty on this): "Let the subject generate its own composition."

I expect that Alain will be able to accomplish one or both of those tasks with some, but not all photographers. But that is true of any good teacher.

And I will agree with Sam that

He is good enough to teach but also bad enough to learn as am I and everyone else

I strongly believe that any good teacher must be constantly learning and self-assessing. If not, you become stale and trite and out of touch with the way the world keeps changing.

Just my additional 2 cents.

[NikoJorj]

IMHO, I believe the simple difference between photography as non-art versus photography as art, is the former tries capture the facts of the scene only, while the latter tries to capture the feelings of that same scenery.

Well, that's where I respectfully disagree with Alain's essay : even if a news photographer is on the factual side, he also seeks emotional impact, which is rather required for a front page, isn't it?
Think of Capa's "falling soldier", eg...

I agree more with the following :

The personality of the photographer must be present in the image for an artistic photograph to have value

To take it to my liking, I'd just re-phrase the latter words with the ones "for a photograph to have an artistic value", because a news photograph as Capa's can both be factual AND have an artistic value.
After all, simple facts can trigger emotions, whether we want it or not.

That stated, I have to admit this disagreement is very superficial, and I completely agree with the underlying truth in Alain's essay : the composition shall elevate a picture from the mere facts to the emotional response to those facts.

[JohnKoerner]

My disagreement is superficial as well.

I don't believe the emotion comes from the photographer's "personality" being added to the shot, I believe the emotion is already there in the subject. The photographer is merely the conduit through whose pictures the emotion and power of that subject matter has been captured, preserved, and transferred to the perception of other persons.

I do realize that photgraphic expertise can alter and augment this perception, while photographic incompetence can diminish the same thing.

Perhaps the "most talented" artistic photographers are those who are able to augment the ordinary things in life into compelling prints, as well as to augment the rare and truly extraordinary moments into breath-taking presentations.

But I still believe most of the "compelling content" must lie in the subject matter. The most technically-sound, noiseless photograph of a boring subject will never be a masterpiece. It will still be a boring shot done well.

And even the most dramatic tinkering of such an ordinary photo through software, though it may make the subject more interesting, still won't make it a master work. At the end of the day, it will still be a boring subject dressed-up.

The subject itself must carry the emotion and power with it. The artistic photographer is one who recognizes this power, and who can position himself and his camera to "seize this moment," and capture it on film in its best possible light, and from the best possible perspective to show this moment to its best possible effect on other people.

Jack

[laughingbear]

Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen,

The concept of "music of the spheres," dating back to the greeks, Pythagorus, held the notion that humans were governed by the perfect proportions of the natural universe. The musical intervals of choise and overall organsiation they used reflected that.

May be we are trapped to think in certain categories, well, I do believe so.

Music has been with me professionally since the age of 10 and earlier, hence I have a pre determined interpretation of the term composition, as you well know Alain.

I am enjoying the freedom, I started with photography not even 3 years ago, wihtout knowing about technical aspects and rules at all, I just picked up a camera and left the door.

In the past 3 years my compositions changed, both in music and photography, one influencing the other in certain ways.

The ways of creating a stunning print changed dramatically in very little time. Then there is a complete new world of "pictures" available that are generated entirely in the digital realm, some of mindblowing beauty in deed.

----
[personal note:]
Hehehe, sorry, I just had an idea! I was just thinking, some of my beach photo experiments, I really should try to combine such with digital 3d render artworks [reminder: Talk to James Tubbritt!]

[a href=\"http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=1hyiideqg34&thumb=4\" target=\"_blank\"]

----

The ways our communication transformed through the use of media like the internet, I happen to remember when this was nothing but a command line interpreter on Unix, left an everlasting impact on the ways we as artists express the reality surrounding us, regadless whether this is literature, music or other artforms. I intend to think this to be relevant for sience as well.

Meanwhile I learned about rules and techniques of course, I am still at it, and probably will be the rest of my life.

The only thing I know is that I never could teach it for one reason. I find it to be too much of an individual aspect to be able to be taught.

I can teach you to come to certain levels of playing a synthesizer, including the programming, but I can not teach you to compose your individual music. I can teach what others taught, starting with Joh. Seb. Bach to Alexandre Scriabin and everything inbetween, but I can not teach anyone to develop his compositional style, or artistic personality, whatever you call it.

This in fact , has to be there in the first place, and I have no influence on it, other than the best I can do as a teacher, to trigger interest and passion, curiousity and desire, but in the moment where I try to teach more, I am endangered to not teach anymore but to indoctrinate the student with my own personal style, hence creating a "crowd of apostels" around me that read my lips and my every move.

The journey towards the event of touching someones heart through our artistic expression is always individual, but once we truly made that experience, it will stay with us for the rest of our time, for this is the only real measurement of our artistic quality, in my own words that is.

Great teachers are students at the same time, always will be, and when they teach they equally learn at the very same time. The principle of "Uke" and "Nage" in Aikido reflects that very well, to be student and teacher at the same time.

As far as I am concerned, I conclude, there are no teachers or students!  

There are only individuals on a similiar journey at different stages of their own personal development.

I shall be excused for I am the rookie here.

Greetings from Ireland
~^..^~
Bear

P.S.

Why I find this thread in the "Site & Board Matters > About This Site" section of LL is beyond my comprehension.  

[NikoJorj]

The most technically-sound, noiseless photograph of a boring subject will never be a masterpiece.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It depends what you call a "boring subject" - but for me, that definition could include [a href=\"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d6/Photo_cartierbresson_europe.jpg]the sad and wet surroundings of a railway station[/url], or a vegetable waiting for the kitchen knife...

My point is that photography or picture geniuses are able to make others feel the emotion they would otherwise be the only one to feel. The emotion in that particular subject is there just because a master has shown it to us - we very probably wouldn't have felt it without the frame, the values of the print or the colors of the paint.
It's in this sense that some of the photographer personality (or at least, some of his/her feeelings) takes a part in a masterpiece.

[laughingbear]

to make others feel the emotion they would otherwise be the only one to feel.

This phenomenon I would describe as the lucky shot, when we manage to capture the true spirit of a landscape for example.

Personally, I can not manipulate or manage that lucky shot to come on demand, it just happens and I know that when I have people react to it.

[djgarcia]

I'd like to add a couple of personal observations from direct experience.

Alain is not an arrogant person. I've been to several of his workshops, which are not cheap but I figured here's a guy who knows when and where to be so I don't need to waste days finding my way around (which makes me kind of arrogant). At first I went basically for the "take me there and let me shoot" experience. And also at first I thought, well he's probably just another arrogant French guy .

But what I found after a while is not just a good teacher, but a good humored, hard working guy who doesn't mind sharing many of his trade secrets to make an honest living, though I'm sure he's keeping back a couple, but who doesn't .

One should never be so quick to judge. Also remember when one is brought up in a different culture and tries to express oneself in a second language, it is easy sometimes to get the wrong kind of tone in our expression. So please cut the man some slack. He really is an OK guy.

And if you think I'm doing this to get preferential treatment in his workshops, I'm not. I bring him & Natalie fresh roasted coffee for that - it's more effective than the classic apple.

BTW, I don't mean to imply Alain needs defending, but some statements do get my emotions going, much like some photographs  ...

[JohnKoerner]

It depends what you call a "boring subject" - but for me, that definition could include the sad and wet surroundings of a railway station, or a vegetable waiting for the kitchen knife...

My point is that photography or picture geniuses are able to make others feel the emotion they would otherwise be the only one to feel. The emotion in that particular subject is there just because a master has shown it to us - we very probably wouldn't have felt it without the frame, the values of the print or the colors of the paint.
It's in this sense that some of the photographer personality (or at least, some of his/her feeelings) takes a part in a masterpiece.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172543\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There is a great deal of truth to this. I actually conceded this point when I said, "... the 'most talented' artistic photographers are those who are able to augment the ordinary things in life into compelling prints," and when this is done I do agreed it is a form of artistic expression. I also agreed that the photographer's personality almost entirely shapes such things, especially when dealing with the physical positioning of inanimate vegetables, etc.

But yet I would hardly call any such photograph or effort "great" or "truly moving." Clever? Sure. Interesting? You bet. Fun to appreciate? Absolutely. But GREAT?? Not by a longshot.

And when you start to complicate things by adding a living model, you still have the direction and work of the photographer enhancing the photo, true, but now you have also added the model's own personality and "art" in positioning her body in an appealing way, her expression, etc. These things are HER gift and contribution to the overall emotional affect of the photo also. (And that is not even arguing the third element of God gracing her with form and figure to begin with, without which her efforts and the photographer's efforts would be worthless, same as God graces particular landscapes and natural settings with form and figure far more beautiful than others.)

But can any model-photographer photo be considered truly "great" either? Some might argue yes, but unless there is something truly profound being expressed, I think not. At the end of the day it is just very creative eye candy.

Truly great shots must involve more than just skill or creativity from the photographer, and the subject itself must be more than merely "interesting" to look at. Truly great shots must convey something awesome in that subject being captured .. such as the raw power of nature ... the will to live in a malevolent environment ... the reality of death captured ... a preserved moment of human achievement and excellence.

IMO a truly great photo is more than just some photographer "adding his personality" to a shot to spice it up or to make it more visually-appealing. To me a truly great shot involves a truly great subject, or concept, where a photographer uses all of his skills to capture something truly special in such a way as the viewer is left in awe of the image ... spellbound by the power ... or the otherworldly beauty ... or the profound message of what he is seeing ... that has been captured perfectly in the photograph.

Jack