The Dark Art of Composition

[leicapixie]

The big-wigs (i.e. curators, portfolio reviewers) tend to frown on "portrait" photos vs. "landscape" photos. The "vertical"/"portrait" style is not the norm, and sometimes they stand out on their own merit (as opposed to the "distraction" committed upon big-wig viewers when mingled with other "landscape"/"horizontal" shots). Some get into a big tizzy over it. And I mean big. So, by applying the theory of "trickle-down", you can see (heh) that it tends to be segregated along the whole photo consumer (and I mean that in the visual, not commercial, sense) chain.

There will always (always always) be the "who cares!"-ist who either doesn't want to be bothered with what others want, but more with what he wants, and deride rules just for being rules.

I respect somebody's work who can successfully digest rules, and can also show when they can not be applied, and who doesn't go down the empty-calorie road of pointing out an exception as evidence that the rule is silly.

I mostly shoot verticals!
Why" Why not horizontals?
Simple answer, I used to do Editorial work for magazines..
Seen a "landscape" format magazine recently?
Selling prints in a Gallery.
Count that on one hand. :bang:
Prints and images for media, let's say "lots".😀

 

[airfrogusmc]

I shoot whatever fits the image vert/horz and what i am trying to say visually.

 

[RichC]

The big-wigs (i.e. curators, portfolio reviewers) tend to frown on "portrait" photos vs. "landscape" photos. The "vertical"/"portrait" style is not the norm [...] Some get into a big tizzy over it. And I mean big. So, by applying the theory of "trickle-down", you can see (heh) that it tends to be segregated along the whole photo consumer (and I mean that in the visual, not commercial, sense) chain.

Actually, I disagree with this - perhaps it depends where you are in the world.

Anyway, it's certainly not true in contemporary art photography circles in Europe (including the UK!). I'm pretty involved in that world, and have never seen any bias for the landscape format over the portrait format - curators, galleries, critics, etc., in my experience couldn't care less, provided the format suits the photograph. In fact, the contemporary art photography establishment is totally open as to how photographs are presented.

If you looks at my portfolio on my website, you'll see plenty of portrait images - have had quite a few exhibitions and awards, and no one's ever mentioned portrait vs landscape format...

(Contemporary art photography is far more concerned that concepts push boundaries and explore ideas than with presentation - assuming the latter isn't obviously ill-suited to the images.)

 

[Joe Crumley]

Fascinating Thread,

It may be Pratt College still offers courses in Layout and Design but they be one of the few colleges still left. As a graduate art teacher let me say that the topic is open ended and almost impossible to formulize. It was a heart breaker when Chicago Art Inst. ended these courses.

O, by the way, everyone should take a peek at Rich's portfolio above. www.richcultler.co.uk. Here's a fellow with a mature and excellent eye.

Back to the subject: After all the decisions made and the shutter's released it often takes a day, week or longer for a proper critique. I've reviewed photo's that I though were excellent and had to ask myself what was I thinking. So much of what we do is emotional. It's a gut response that defies explanation. For example, if you stand in front of a Kandinski painting and try to define what's going on you may need to find an analysis. I love his work.

Joe