Below is a link to a thread which goes back to December of 2002. For some reason this thread is positioned in the Cafe. There is a lot of good information in this thread which is offered primarily by Peggy Baumgaertner but also with help from friends. It's certainly relevant to this discussion of composition:

Top ten ingredients in any painting

Ah, Mike, this thread was just what I needed. Peggy's 3 value massing was a good reminder to reevaluate the painting I am currently working on.

Thanks for bringing it out of the archives!

Enzie,

I haven't forgotten our dinner and walk on your California beach, and what a gracious host you were. Surrounded by beauty and talent such as yourself, Peggy B, Chris S., Linda B., Johanna Spinks and others, I was but a thorn in the company of roses.

Mike, you are funny! I enjoyed your company as well and hope you come back and visit soon.

This thread has been very interesting to read and I appreciate all your hard work. I am going through the archives looking for information how to deal with a person and a horse composition. It is half way done, but the value massing was a good reminder to go check and make sure everything is where it needs to be. Chris's input about horse and rider was pretty interesting, but I am looking for a circular composition. The horse tilts it's head down towards a girl. Any ideas where to look further?

Enzie,

You might want to post your painting in the WIP section.

Speaking of the equestrian, here's a few compositions. The first two by Janet Shearer and then: Iberian Dance by Lesley Humphrey.

Thanks Mike!

I love the white horse, beautiful! I can't use these images, but thanks for taking the time to look these up for me.

Advice to young artist (in part)
by Sir Frederick Leighton
at the Royal Academy Banquet 1893

In brief, I do not believe - to change the metaphor - that they who, in our time, have wedded their lives to art have clasped to their breasts a lovely but lifeless corpse. To the very young then, I would fain offer one or two matters for thought, if, perchance, they will hearken to one who has grown old in unwavering sympathy with their struggles and doubts. I would beg them to keep ever before their eyes the vital truth that sincerity is the well-spring of all lasting achievement, and that no good thing ever took root in untruth or self-deception. I would urge them to remember that if every excellent work is stamped with the personality of its author, no work can be enduring that is stamped with a borrowed stamp; and that, therefore, their first duty is to see that the thoughts, the emotions, the impressions they fix on he canvas are in very truth their own thoughts, their own emotions, their own spontaneous impressions, and not those of others: for work that does not spring from the heart has no roots, and will of certainty wither and perish. The other maxim also I would urge on them - that true genius knows no hurry, that patience is of its essence, and thoroughness its constant mark; and, lastly, I would ask them to believe that the gathered experience of past ages is a precious heritage and not an irksome load; and that nothing will fortify them better for the future, and free development, than the reverent and loving study of the past.

Lord Frederick Leighton:

Phoebe 22x24
Music Lesson 36x46 c.1877
The Painters Honeymoon 33x30
Self Portrait 30x25 1880

Very well written and great advise to pass on. Mike, where did you find this quote? Did it come from a book and if so would you share the title?

I find it curious though that when artists break the rules and create works that do not follow the "traditional way"of composition for example, it is met with an uproar of disapproval. Just the very fact that the work does not follow the old conventions, rattles the comfortable confines of the cocoon that the artist community has spun for itself.

Yet, if the same traditions are followed the work is viewed as a copy and the artist as one who lacks individuality .

In portraiture it seems that walking the thin line of being creative, having individualistic style, yet adhering to all the rules and regulations of what constitutes great portraiture seems even more of a challenge.

Enzie,

The book is called: "Famous quotes that Mike McCarty found while trolling the Art Renewal web site" -- Houghton Mifflin, third printing, TexMex edition.

The quote above is the last half of his full remarks which can be seen just under Leighton's biographical information here: www.artrenewal.org. Just click on one of his paintings on their home page.

*******

Of course Leighton above is not exactly preaching conformity.

These are difficult concepts to convey. To me, the so called "rules of composition," are more a subset of the laws of nature than of the laws of man. It's not just that some governing board has set out some set of arbitrary rules; they are inherent, and they run deep. They are inherent in the way that humans visually perceive.

I think that if you picked ten bright citizen laymen and set before them a series of paintings, drawings, etc., and ask them to pick out the most aesthetically pleasing, for the most part I believe their selections would coincide with what we artists would agree are the paintings that follow our "so called" rules. I do not, however, believe that the lay persons could well articulate the reasons for their choices. They might say -- It just looked good to me.

If you accept my hypothesis for a while longer you might ask -- how then do they know how to pick? I think they know because they are following what I would call the compositional laws of nature. It has to do with the way we humans see, how we perceive the world through our two eyes that are placed in the front of our heads. Shapes, edges, intensities of color and contrast, and especially the relationship to edges (this is what brings all the senses to bear -- the act of defining the edge) present themselves either in harmonious patterns, or, they do not. Over time artists have come to document some of these more obvious pattern flaws into sets of "rules," but we are just documenting what nature has already lain out, given our human perceptions.

But, alas, there are some practitioners that just don't get it even by half, and they lay down the most awful discords to nature. And, I think, when you don't get it, you don't even know that you don't get it, and so you press on.

I ask myself the question morning, noon and night -- Do I get it? What if I am successfully realizing my vision, but the vision I aspire to is crap? How would I know for sure? Where would I go to get my vision checked? Can a flawed vision be corrected, or is it like the size of your foot, or your height? I think this is one of the saddest things about pursuing art -- you can be perfectly successful in achieving your vision, it's just that the vision you've chosen is universally accepted as not good, and you can't understand why.

Of course it matters whether you are creating art simply for the joy of creation, or whether you seek acceptance outside the walls of your own place of worship.

Also, there is the real possibility that these views simply further the notion that I am more full of it than the upcoming Thanksgiving turkey, but I'm not completely sure, so I press on.

Enzie,

That thin line is ever present. I think it exists in every discipline, from Architecture to wind surfing. The very few that successfully cross the line are revered, most just get shot down.

I think Leighton's advice is good, you should just follow where your mind and heart lead you and be sincere. If we are constantly checking ourselves against some existing yardstick we'll just end up lopping off some body part. The sum of it is much to complicated to absorb, and I tend to over think matters. I think sincerity is as good a path as any.