Can anyone objectively define composition, and more importantly, good composition?
Subjective evaluations and opinions hold no meaning or merit.
The arrangement of items and form in the scene.
Good composition balances the scene's visual weight, as well as uses light, color, texture, form, and lines to guide the viewer around the image.
In your OP image, for instance, the hair, jacket collar, and mouth-area are all "visually heavy". They anchor the image, and draw your eye. The hair is heavy top and right, so having the mouth left, and the collar bottom right help to balance it. This image is doing well in terms of balancing the visual weight.
Can i get a deconstruction of this reaction image as well? That was awesome.
>Subjective evaluations and opinions hold no meaning or merit.
the fuck you, youre only going to get opinions here.
my take: ive always thought of composition in terms of physical forces, like gravity. there needs to be a certain "pull" between the elements, they need to be arranged in a way that has at least 3 elements in "motion", so they play. if you have lots of elements you lose potency. if you have 2 there is no tension and no play. one should be able to identify these elements quickly. the human mind is pretty fucking fast and resolves in less than a second if something has desirable qualities or not. then, good composition should be evident. you should be able to make it as abstract as you could and for it to remain the same.
painters got this shit eons ago. oh and nice pinecone.
>vague concept of "elements" without any definition or concreteness
>yet tries to anchor it to objective physical forces like gravity
you kinda sound like a man from thousands of years ago talking about humors in the body
the makeup and layout of a photograph and the elements within it
good composition will have attention grabbing focal point(s) and subordinate areas, should be striking/interesting, whatever
>you kinda sound like a man from thousands of years ago talking about humors in the body
>implying that man didnt nail your entire personality by defining you a fuckload years ago as a "melancholic".
>thinks GR isnt that great
>unironically has HP lovecraft & clive barker and bothered to post textbooks
Jesus christ familia. If this was posted in a chain not referring to the quality of GR i wouldn't give a fuck, but if this is to imply that HP and clive barker are more of worth on your hard drive than GR, then you need to reevaluate your literary assessment.
Good choice on the Saunders as a logic book tho.