Talk:Composition (visual arts)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale.

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general): Filmmaking task force

Contents 1 Short-term goals 2 Long-term goals 3 Terminology 4 Some missing concepts 5 Composition vs. elements of design 6 New Image 7 Rule of Thirds 8 copyedit?

[edit] Short-term goals

I think it makes more sense to make each "heuristic" its own primary section, so I'll remove the heuristics section and bump everything else up a level.

I'd like to have a sample image to demonstrate each primary concept.

I'm not familiar enough with the topic to determine whether the four "primary elements" are comprehensive, so I'd like to review the literature.

[edit] Long-term goals

All fair and good, but the page seems to focus explicitly on photographic composition. What about composition in other forms of visual art, notably painting? Either make the discussion less obviously focused on photography and applicable to all visual art, or add a separate section for said miscellaneous visual art forms.

[edit] Terminology

The terms "subject" and "ground" should be properly introduced (and "ground" should be used).

[edit] Some missing concepts

• Negative space
• Balance
• The subject should not be facing out of the image
• A moving subject should have space in front
• Color
• Geometry
• Line
• Contrast
• Rhythm
• Light
• Eye movement
• Pattern
• Repetition (Perhaps same as pattern; rhythm also comes into play, as does geometry)

Also;

• harmony, or consistency
• centre of interest, or emphasis
• orientation of objects
• cropping
• the golden mean/section
• page layout (graphic design)
• breaking the rules to create tension

elements might be a better term than objects Adytum72a

[edit] Composition vs. elements of design

I want to make sure that I don't confuse composition with design elements. For example, shapes are a design element; what you do with them is composition.

Or at least, that's how I interpret the distinction. A formal art education would help here. Anyone? -JohnRDaily 23:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's my take. Design elements are: tone, repitition, shape, line, movement, color etc.

Composition is the placement of design elements to correspond with the artist's intent by utilizing compositional principles such as balance, perspective and proportion.

So, you're correct. In discussions addressing formal aspects of an artwork, compostional principles and design elements are discussed (sometimes interchangably) because they are dependant on each other. --Mrs Scarborough 18:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Image

I've added an image to help illustrate the concept of simplification. It's my own, so there shouldn't be any problems. escapologist Image:Exquisite-kate.png 13:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rule of Thirds

This rule is not an application of the Golden ratio. This allegation is largely widespread but wrong.--83.203.23.117 08:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Says who? What is it based on, if not an approximation of phi? Was it invented by photographers? Source, please, or it goes back in! mikaul^talk 18:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] copyedit?

I'm inclined to suggest a re-write of this article. I was going to copy edit as it seemed a bit untidy at first glance, but on a read-through it's really messy. The opening sentence is practically meaningless; it doesn't really have a lead section, just a list of ad hoc points, most of which are vague and appear to be unsourced and/or poorly researched. The rest of the article appears to be about photography, not visual arts, which is fine for a spinoff but this really needs to be structured better and sourced better before it gets to that point. I'll leave it for discussion for a while. I've tagged it as {{not verified}} for now.
mikaul^talk 09:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to organise the layout better, included the stuff that's been suggested here, and made some other changes such as reducing the bias to photography. It's still too ad hoc and lacks references, but hopefully this is a starting point. The sections on the use of line were/are too waffly and I couldn't make head nor tail of "The brain often unconsciously reads near continuous lines between different elements and subjects at varying distances" so I just left it in. "Viewpoint" should maybe have it's own "rule" subsection but viewpoint per se isn't a rule, and I think there should be more of a "theory" section, stating the case for any rules. I also tried to distinguish between elements and factors.

Alternatively you could get rid of the "theory" section altogether and expand the factors into an explanation and justification for each. I'm thinking that's desirable anyway. We could do with some better images and the flowers image is more suitable for a photography specific page I think. I couldn't find any suitable copyright free images on wikimedia but will look at some of the other art pages here. Adytum72a 03:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The flower is intended to illustrate depth of field, which (to the best of my knowledge, which admittedly isn't particularly deep here) is largely a photographic concept. Certainly, depth of field could be used in other visual arts, but I suspect that other mechanisms for selective emphasis are more prevalent.

You're welcome to remove my photograph illustrating the rule of thirds if you want to cut down on the number of photographs on the page, but I'd rather see more samples rather than fewer. --JohnRDaily 04:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)