[smokel]

I often wonder what role snobbery plays in the acceptance or formation of these kinds of rules.

An amateur would simply point their camera at the subject, and be done with it. To show that one has actually read a book on art, or at least thought about this for a minute, one can use the rule of thirds, or the golden ratio. Given enough guts, one can then proceed to the next level of reverse psychology by simply placing the subject in the center again, as Diane Arbus and Rineke Dijkstra do.

The fact that the latter are quite successful, suggests that the rules are not fundamental.

Edit: Forgot to mention that the article is really nice!

[mbivert]

> I often wonder what role snobbery plays in the acceptance or formation of these kinds of rules.

Perhaps it's snobbery for some people, but there's definitely practical value in those rules, at least as far as painting is concerned: there's much less control with photography (unless it's digitally altered: we're getting closer to painting).

For example, when you put things slightly of center this creates room to induce a "flow" within the piece, pathways for the eyes, keeping the viewer engaged with the piece/animation (eyes are attracted by strong contrasts: by controlling the intensity and placement of the contrasts, the eyes can be more or less predictably guided).

Random reference: https://ebenschumacherart.com/learn-to-use-flow-in-your-art/

The main issue with composition rules is when they're applied too rigidly: they should be thought as general guidelines. The key is too be conscious of the general impact of some of those rules (e.g. horizontal => calmness), and apply them with intent.

[smokel]

I have a suspicion that "flow" (or visual movement) has similar snobist connotations :)

I'm not saying that snobbery in art is bad, by the way. I just couldn't find the right words for these concepts being social constructs, instead of related to fundamental workings of the brain.

I find it interesting to consider aspects of vision that we all share, i.e. those that are not learned at a later age. Op-art is not really my cup of tea, but contrast, visual hierarchy, symmetry, all play interesting roles in painting and photography.

I wonder if flow is one of those rudimentary visual skills, because I never experienced it before someone told me about it.

[mbivert]

I think the contemporary visual "fine" art scene is responsible for quite some damage in how people conceptualize art; "snobbery" is not an unfair description. It's difficult from the outset to distinguish smoke and mirrors from the real thing.

Industries with more tangible economical grounds (e.g. comics, animation, advertisement) are usually better sources of knowledge as a result.

> I wonder if flow is one of those rudimentary visual skills, because I never experienced it before someone told me about it.

Perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that it has never been experienced consciously: advertisement, movies, animated movies, all are designed with such ideas in mind.

Also, note that there can be "variants" on this idea of flow. For example, "unity in diversity" is a common composition principle, where you try find a balance between an excess of diversity (chaotic looking) and a lack of it (boring): this will encourage the creation of a few tied zones within a piece, and a "flow"/"eyes pathways" should naturally arise.

But even that principle of "unity in diversity" isn't always expressed in this way, sometimes it will arise from other notions (see the 5 principles of composition mentioned here [0]).

[0]: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/45410/45410-h/45410-h.html#t...