[photochemsyn]

Additional commentary from nature/landscape photographer Ansel Adams (who often placed the horizon one or two thirds up from the bottom of the frame, e.g. Moonrise, but also used many other approaches):

> "Are you tired of hearing about the rules of composition? So was Ansel Adams. ‘The so-called rules of photographic composition are, in my opinion, invalid, irrelevant, immaterial,’ he said. Rules of composition, such as the rule of thirds and golden ratio, are stale, predictable and boring. While they can certainly serve to create visually pleasing images, they can also stand to get in the way of creativity."

https://www.photocrowd.com/blog/197-how-shoot-ansel-adams/

[encomiast]

As similar complaint:

> "The rule of thirds is perhaps the greatest fallacy ever foisted upon the beginning photography student, a canard from lazy educators designed to give the impression that their ideas are based soundly in theory."

…and then asking why cinematography is taught differently: https://www.photo-mark.com/notes/rule-herds/

[vladms]

Sometimes rules/ideas are useful for specific stages or projects, but people tend to forget to be critical and decide for each project in particular the set of rules they want, and not to make out of them "axioms".

Related to artistic stuff, I think some modern art can be understood much better if you at least are aware (have seen / thought about / discussed) the older art. It's not like 19th century art is invalid or irrelevant - the relevance is also in the process and defining what came before and after, plus personal preferences.

Maybe the rules of thirds gets out of fashion, but might be still be useful for some projects, for understanding the evolution, or just because some people love it (like it's perfectly fine to like 19th century art compared to modern).