Is this painting using the rule of thirds?

>>3122310
youre literally retarded.

>>3122315
Y

File: Screenshot_20170728-115229.jpg (929KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

929KB, 1440x2560px

>>3122310
You tell me

>>3122319
Nice. send a painting that does use the rule of thirds so I can compare

>>3122319
Both of the points of interests are not in the center, isn't that basically the rule of thirds? The two girls are in the center sure but due to the lighting they are obviously not the point of interest like the other girls.

File: inigo-montoya-you-keep-using-that-word-i-dont-think-it-means-what-you-th-3b4b2920-sz625x625-animate.jpg (147KB, 625x625px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 625x625px

>>3122328

I looked it up now

How do I delete this?

>>3122310
I’d argue it does. The girl on the bottom’s head sits pretty close to the lower right intersection, and so we are drawn to her first and most closely. The other figures don’t meet any of the intersections so they feel detached and cut off from the main subject. It works really nicely imo.

>rule of thirds
>in a square image
If you're going to learn a bunch of stupid "rules", maybe learn what aspect ratios they apply to, too.

Rule of thirds is fucking trash for square format unless it's harmonized by symmetry on the opposite thirds.

You want to make the eye circumnavigate the center of the square frame, not seek out an arbitrary third. Your eye is not drawn naturally to the third of a square, but to its center, and then to the center of the four square quadrants formed by the recognition of the center.

Please kill yourself.

>>3122328
>Both of the points of interests are not in the center, isn't that basically the rule of thirds?
please let this be a joke