[sensoryoverload]

I'm looking for information on "Composition", anyone knows a good book or a good link for it? It's still a sort of mystery subject to me. And if anyone has any insights to share please post a reply. I'd love to hear what you guys think.

[Ecanem]

I'd like to know also!!

Only thing I know of is the silhoutte thing I've picked up from a Disney book...

A pose or an action should "always" be clear (obvious) from watching a black figure in silhoutte on a white background.. I'll have a look-see if I can find the book I'm refering to when I get home..

- sorry, not much help from me...

[balistic]

Here's a link with some basic compositional info:
http://www2.evansville.edu/studiochalkboard/draw.html

[Mr. T]

jason: thanks a lot... your lessons are always useful.

[sensoryoverload]

Well, It's still kinna vague to me but I'm gonna give it a try. Here goes:

The first piece : http://sunsite.dk/cgfa/dore/p-dore3.htm

-Well, first thing I notice is the "REPETITION" of the clouds on the top half
-I do see "Balance" in this piece because it is very evenly split in 2 halves
-I also find that the bottom it's very dark while the top part is light, I guess that would go under "Tonal Pattern".
-The clouds to me sort of look like arrows pointing down to the focal point because they are smaller at the bottom and thicker at the top, I guess that could go under "Linear design/ Placement" because of the visual flow it gives.
-The "EMPHASIS/FOCUS" is definitely the darkest part of the piece, and since everything is sort of on the top half or the bottom half. The focal point really sticks out because it's in the middle and because it's the darkest.
-I do see some subtle lines pointing towards the focal point. ie: the directions of the bodies on the ground, their weapons... I'd put this in "Linear design/ Placement"
-"Space" wise, I think the white patch in the middle creates a nice contrast to the dark value of the focal point, making it hard to look away from it.
-I also find that the top half seem to get darker towards the top, and the bottom half seems to get lighter towards the bottom... don't know if I'm reading too much out of it.

Overall I think it's quite nice, but I don't really like if for some reason. Something about this painting bugs me.... oh well, it could be personal taste I guess.

What do you guys think?

[isthmus nekoi]

A successful composition should direct the eye around the entire space, keep the eye's attention (ie. not have it fade away like wallpaper does). An easy way to check for any compositional flaws is to flip it in something like Photoshop. Try different ways, ie. the composition should work upside down, reversed (like a mirror's reflection) etc. Another nice thing you can easily do on Photoshop etc is to scale the image down and step back from the monitor to see the illustration as an abstract piece. Do the shapes/tones etc still work?

Also, I've found looking at Japanese prints very useful in learning about composition. The same elements are applied, but in different ways (ie. a much greater emphasis on negative space).

My my, Dore is walking a very fine line! Never heard of the guy, but that's a very bold move, bisecting the composition horizontally right in the middle of the picture. This type of thing usually tends to 'break' the composition into two parts. He emphasizes this by making the piece almost monotone, w/the black/white extremes... so how does it work - why are we not bored and how is the composition kept whole?

First, I'm in total agreement w/you sensoryoverload, the clouds direct the eye and the cloud w/most detail draws you right to the 2 main figures who break the horizontal line. And yes, the lightest and darkest part (the main figures/sky) create more contrast, thus drawing in the eye more.

Just to add in my own observations: the triangular shape of the figures and the use of light in the lower 1/2 of the piece direct the eye in a semi-circular fashion from right to left (down the back to the path and chest plate highlight, to detailed bodies to the fur (?) and then to the wheel - the angle of the wheel directs us back to the light sky patch which again brings us to the the figures.

Some general points (just rules of thumb):

- we are usually drawn to human figures first and animals over non-animate things.

- line of sight (where someone's looking) can create a sort of invisible compositional line b/c ppl will follow it.

- the more diagonal the more dynamic.

- eye is drawn to 'like' things and will connect them. ie. in the Degas painting, look at the careful placement of the colourful bows. Without that blue bow, we'd lose that cropped girl in the corner there, the eye might not travel around the back to the other girls... Or check out the Inness paiting. What would happen if we took the highlight off the top of the sailboat, or the birds?

There are no hard and fast rules for composition. Just generalities to work with.

ie. http://sunsite.dk/cgfa/degas/p-degas22.htm
How does Degas get away w/cropping off those girls' heads?!!

A very cool thread! Looking fwd to what others have to say...

[Jason Manley]

very nicely done...keep em coming. when we get all the paintings dissected and analyzed I will chime in about the more common ways that images are composed in terms of pattern and layout.

j

[Lunatique]

Here's an extensive thread from the past that covers this subject.
http://www.sijun.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001514


Enjoy.

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Lunatique ]

[Jucas]

http://sunsite.dk/cgfa/g/p-gerome3.htm

Here is my take.

RYTHM;
The center of the painting contains the primary focal point. But the flag staff as well as the flag itself draw or eye around the peice. The red door brings our eye back to the center.

EMPHASIS/FOCUS;
This one is easy. The eye rests in the center, where the brunt of the painting is. The figure draws your eye as well as the colors, which happen red, and as well all know red draw attention. The Flag and detailing on the door provide a secondary focal areas which move your eye across/down the painting.

As I mentioned before, the flag staff plays an important role. It draws a line and seperates the piece, providing exceptional flow and draws our eyes across the page.

I think the crack on the right also serves a sutle purpose. It acts as a counter-weight, something that draws our eyes to the right of the page, while being sutle enough to not subtract from the piece.

VARIETY;
The background and foreground contrast each other, in color and in shape. The white and reds of the foreground (and red door) draw the eye away from the background and provide a focal point. The shapes of the background are very architechual and are the complete opposite of the foreground, namely the organic cloth forms.

ECONOMY;
The best example of economy in this piece, is the simplified script on the door and flag. If the script on the door had been more "pronounced" it would have drawn the eye away from the main focus, which is still the figure. Same goes for the flag. Also the color use in the background is economised and simplified. A choice was obviously made to use mono tone colors, except on the door, to draw the eye to the colors.

REPETITION;
We can see repetition in various elements in the piece, such as the close resemblence of the flag to the garmet the figure is wearing. This helps unify the image as a whole.

BALANCE;
As I mentioned before the flag staff plays a major role balancing the image. It allows the viewer to follow it either to the figure or down the flag itself. The natural tendency is to go toward the figure at not oly because of the door, but because of the white.
I talked about this more up above.

MOVEMENT;
See above.

Ummm... I am getting strung out for thoughts. But that is my contribution. I didn't proof read it, so if there are simple mistakes I apoligize.

[Jason Manley]

great topic...absolutely great.

Im going to provide some basic funamentals of composition and pictorial design for you all to chew on...input is completely welcome as I look to you for help understanding this all as well.

some of you have asked for a thread where we could run a group lesson. This is the ideal thread to do so.

below is a list of what I would call "principles of composition"

1 RYTHM (a stacatto movement of shapes across a page...sometimes containing visual crescendos and more visually quiet areas)
2 EMPHASIS/FOCUS (where they eye is meant to rest...usually will have secondary and tertiary focal areas to move the eye around the page and sometimes to tell the story in order of importance)
3 VARIETY (variety of shape, idea, and anything else pictorially)
4 ECONOMY (simplified areas in pictorial design that will allow the eye to rest for example...though it could be economy of idea or anything else...a good fundamental to think of if your piece "busy")
5 REPETITION (repetition of idea, shape..forms..you name it...can often help unify an image design wise)
6 BALANCE (visually weighing shapes to allow for unity and for they eye to be able to rest and then follow the intended path of content...among other things)
7 MOVEMENT (movement of the eye across the page and through and into pictorial space...movement of objects, direction shapes point, pathways of light or dark, color pulls etc..)
8 Space(use of value, shape, edge, overlap and color to create depth..line can also be used)
9 Tonal Pattern (a pattern of values that make up the value composition of the image..see rembrandt and dore specifically...it is this pattern that supports the mood of the image..this is an important aspect of composition...this pattern also dictates focal areas and areas of less importance)
10 Linear design/ Placement (the placement of implied lines and forms appropriate for mood, direction, and visual flow..etc..)
11 UNITY (all the above fundamentals adding up to a composition that is unified in design and visually balanced...when all parts make a whole)

There are a few artists in art history that are primarily known for their composition skills. The artists we will be looking at first are Rembrandt, Degas, Dore, Ingres, Inness, Gerome and Mucha. feel free to provide any examples that support your case. For now I will stick to these artists for my points of illustration.

I will provide some example images and would like it if you could find specific instances where the above topics are found.

http://sunsite.dk/cgfa/dore/p-dore3.htm
http://www.abcgallery.com/R/rembrandt/rembrandt3.html
http://sunsite.dk/cgfa/i/p-inness3.htm
http://sunsite.dk/cgfa/degas/p-degas23.htm
http://www.abcgallery.com/I/ingres/ingres14.html
http://www.goodart.org/amflowr.jpg
http://sunsite.dk/cgfa/g/p-gerome3.htm


once we get this discussion going I will put up a thread on a composition excersize for all of us.

let me know what you think.


j

[mza]

Andrew Loomis, Creative Illustration.
Very rare, hard to find book, but if you can get a hold of it...it's well worth it.

[HawkOne]

Books to look out for about composition.

Design & Composition Secrets of Professional Artists : 16 Successful Painters Show How They Create Prize-Winning Work (International Artist Publishing)
17.49$ Link to amazon for this book

-----------------------------------

Composition in Art (by Henry Rankin Poore)
8.95$ Link to amazon for this book

-------------------------------------
The Power of the Center : A Study of Composition in the Visual Arts : The New Version (by Rudolf Arnheim)
13.26$ Link to Amazon for this book

---------------------------------

Also keep an eye open for Arthur Wesley Dow, he is a renowned expert on composition.

Some of the books about composition is NOT easy reading, since some of the theories behind are rather complex. Prepare to be baffled by "Academy Talk"

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: HawkOne ]

[isthmus nekoi]

I forgot another easy trick to see if the composition works tonally is to change the image mode to greyscale. Actually, it wouldn't be a bad idea to find some good paintings on the net and convert them to greyscale - see how the tones interact.