What are some “rules” of composition guiding an artist’s hand?
This is the second part of the discussion begun in the last post regarding “rules” of composition. As explained in the last post (Part 1), these “rules” should not be perceived as inflexible laws but rather as guides intended to help artists to arrange their subject material in artworks. After all, to make an artwork eye-catching, artists need to deviate from conventional arrangements underpinning the “rules” and add an element of surprise (i.e. an unpredictable element breaking the “rules”). To sustain the same approach to the discussion as in Part 1, I will again use Ernst Haeckel's scientific illustrations as the focus for the explanation.
Rule #6: avoid creating uninterrupted lines across an image (i.e. where the featured subject creates a conceptual bridge spanning one side of the image to the next, such as an horizon line that has no subject breaking its continuous line). In Haeckel’s Acanthophracta—Plate 41 (shown below) the radiolarians are all arranged with black space surrounding them. Consequently, there are no uninterrupted lines to be seen that might otherwise break the composition into separate components. For instance, if some of these delicate forms were rearranged to create a continuous line wherein they “touch” each other as well as two sides of the image’s border (as shown in the digitally altered image further below for example) then the viewer’s eye is drawn to the uninterrupted line they create. In the case of this altered image, the eye then reads the division in the image as producing two sections; each of which are united with the other but at the same time both are examined by the eye as separate pictorial zones. In short the cohesiveness of the image is diminished.
 |
Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919)
Acanthophracta—Plate 41 Folio print (antique halftone lithographic translation of Haeckel’s drawing by Adolf Giltsch) from Ernst Haeckel’s 1899–1904 edition of Kunstformen der Natur published by
28 x 20 cm (image); 35.5 x 27 cm (sheet)
Condition: there is a crease on the lower corner well away from the image.
I am selling this print (Acanthophracta—Plate 41) and the print below (Siphonopharae—Plate 37) along with their accompanying sheets of explanatory text for a combined total cost of $137 AUD including postage and handling to anywhere in the world. (Note: these are large prints and will be shipped in a tube.) Please contact me using the email link at the top of the page if you have any queries or click the “Buy Now” button below.
|
 |
Sheet of
explanatory text for Acanthophracta—Plate
41 from Ernst Haeckel’s 1899–1904 edition of Kunstformen der Natur published by
|
 |
Digitally
altered image of Acanthophracta—Plate 41
showing the effect of creating an interrupted line
|
Rule #7: avoid even numbers of subjects (i.e. images composed with, for
example, two, four, six or eight featured subjects). This is a common sense
type of rule in that when an artist uses odd numbers of subjects—one, three,
five or seven etc.—then there is a better chance of there being a centre of interest
upon which the eye can focus. To express this differently, committees are
ideally composed of an odd number of people because an odd number means that
one member of the committee stands alone and can cast a deciding vote. In terms
of composition, the same logic applies in that odd numbers of subjects usually
means that one of them stands out to become the focal point whereas when even
numbers of subjects are featured this can lean a composition towards symmetry
where all the subjects compete for attention. In Haeckel’s Siphonopharae—Plate 37 (shown below) there are an odd number of
subjects and clearly the central form is visually arresting because of its size
and complexity. If this central form is removed (as can seen in the digitally
altered image further below) then there are an even number of subjects and the
eye is left in a perceptual flux as to where the eye should “rest.”
 |
Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919)
Siphonopharae—Plate 37
Folio
print (antique halftone lithographic translation of Haeckel’s drawing by Adolf
Giltsch) from Ernst Haeckel’s 1899–1904 edition of Kunstformen der Natur
published by
28 x 20 cm
(image); 35.5 x 27 cm (sheet)
I am
selling this print (Siphonopharae—Plate 37)
and the print above (Acanthophracta—Plate
41) along with their accompanying sheets of explanatory text for a combined
total cost of $137 AUD including postage and handling to anywhere in the world.
(Note: these are large prints and will be shipped in a tube.) Please contact me
using the email link at the top of the page if you have any queries or click
the “Buy Now” button above.
|
 |
Sheet of
explanatory text for Siphonopharae—Plate 37from
Ernst Haeckel’s 1899–1904 edition of Kunstformen
der Natur published by
|
 |
Digitally
altered image of Siphonopharae—Plate 37
showing the effect of featuring an even number of subjects
|
To extend this process of
elimination a stage further, in the second altered image of Siphonopharae—Plate 37 shown below, the
number of subjects is reduced to just three forms and the eye has less of a
problem choosing a centre of interest—to my eye the lower left
Siphonopharae. In short, the odd number of displayed subjects allows the viewer
to select a centre of interest by establishing one of the forms to be the most
interesting in a hierarchy of visual importance (i.e. by a perceptual “pecking
order”).
 |
Digitally
altered image of Siphonopharae—Plate 37
showing the effect of featuring an odd number of subjects
|
Rule #8: avoid creating a “floating” composition (i.e. do not position a subject so
that it is unattached to the outside border of the image or in a way that does
not conceptually relate to the border). For example, if I revisit the
composition of Haeckel’s Siphonopharae—Plate
37 and digitally “float” the portrayed forms with additional space surround
them as a group, as shown below (see upper-right image), the relationship
between the forms and the borderline of the format becomes more “free” compared
to the original print (see upper-left image). By this I mean that an element of
visual uncertainty is introduced into the composition as to the spatial
position of the forms—to my eyes they are further away in this fresh
arrangement. Moreover, there is also a leaning to ambiguity with regard to the
meaning projected by the new composition—to my eyes the forms are not as structurally
solid compared to how they appear when juxtaposed close to the straight edges
of the border as in the original print. If I then digitally remove all but the
central Siphonopharae from the composition (see lower-left image) the relationship
between the borderline and the portrayed subject becomes more tenuous. This is
because the removal of the Siphonopharae from the corners of the composition
makes the arrangement less formal and rigid. As a final experiment, consider
how the relationship between the border and the central Siphonopharae breaks
down even further if the subject’s form is distorted (see lower-right image) so
that it could be framed with formats other than a rectangle (e.g. an oval or a
diamond-shape). At this stage the compositional link between subject and the
image shape is lost by the effect of a perceptually floating subject.
 |
(upper-left)
Siphonopharae—Plate 37
(upper-right)
digitally altered image showing the effect of a “floating” composition
(lower-left)
digitally altered image showing the effect of a “floating” composition
(lower-right)
digitally distorted image showing the effect of a “floating” composition
|
The addition of a single line connecting the
subject to the borderline, however, can “fix” the problem and give
compositional cohesiveness back to the image as can be seen in the adjusted
image below.
 |
Digitally altered
image of Siphonopharae—Plate 37
|
In the earlier adjustment of Siphonopharae—Plate 37 showing the
effect of using only three featured subjects (see the left image below) the
composition displays a visually unsettling top-left weighting. One way to
address this aesthetic problem is to shift the upper-left Siphonopharae to a position
where it acts like a fulcrum (i.e. the pivoting point) of a child’s swing to
aesthetically balance the two other forms. In the right image below, I have
selected such a point that I feel is aesthetically “right” for balancing the visual
weights of the lower-left and the upper-right forms. Of course there are many
other such positions and there will be many viewers with a much more refined
sense for locating the exact “sweet spot” for placing this subject.
 |
Digitally
altered image of Siphonopharae—Plate 37
showing the fulcrum point adjustments
|
 |
(left) Siphonopharae—Plate 37
(right)
digitally altered image using uneven spacing of subjects
|
