Square composition?

Mike McCarty · 08-26-2002, 05:03 PM

I have never been a big fan of square compositions. I don't know where I got this prejudice. I have something that I am working on and each time I cut, crop, paste to make the image work I end up with a square image. Is there anything inherently wrong with a square image composition?

Michael Fournier · 08-26-2002, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Is there anything inherently wrong with a square image composition?

Mike, nothing is wrong or right about any size or dimension in and of itself. You could even have a circle composition that is beautiful. The Golden Mean is a guide not a steadfast rule. Square compositions can be hard in many ways, but as an illustrator, I have had to do a few (CD and before that album covers are square). Also, anyone who has done a collectors plate illustration can tell you a circle can have its own composition problems as well. When faced with a square it is most important to include ether some strong horizontal or strong vertical to offset the rather boring, even dimensions; but that is not a stead fast rule either. Also try never to center anything within a square - but again, not a steadfast rule either. If formality is desired, a very balanced composition may be what you want.

The rules of informal subdivision can help make a rather boring composition sing. What is this rule? It is simple. You just divide the space unequally and interestingly, avoiding placing a line at a point which would be one half, one third or one forth of the whole space. You can then continue to divide your divisions with diagonals that intersect at points of interest within your divisions. It sounds complicated but it's not really, and it offers great freedom to the artist in makng interesting compositions within a variety of shapes.

In book illustration, a long vertical rectangle is common, and it is usually taller than the golden mean would have you design in. Tri-folds are much wider then a normal landscape, and must function as a unified composition when viewed as a whole; the front cover alone needs to work as a vertical composition.

Every painting is a challenge, no matter what the shape of the canvas. In the end, if you are conscious of line and value areas, you can get a good composition within any shape. The golden mean is just the most visually pleasing proportion and for the most part the easiest to work within - but it is not by any means the only proportion to use. I have seen paintings that are much taller then they are wide and vice-versa.

Mike McCarty · 08-26-2002, 06:26 PM

I'm going to post two versions of the same photo ref. I like the first but am a bit bothered by the space in the bottom left. So, I tried the cropped version, the square.

I did a sketch of this once before and ruined it with my brief watercolor period.

Mike McCarty · 08-26-2002, 06:31 PM

The square...

And, I forgot to say thank you, Michael, for your very informative response.

Chris Saper · 08-26-2002, 07:28 PM

Hi, Mike.

I absolutely love square compositions! I have done quite a few in this format; there is something about the square that I find settling. I do agree, though, that there are different challenges involved in balancing its static shape.

The two things I think are most important are to find and use strong diagonals in the way the space is divided, be it by shape, value, or line; and to place the focal point sufficiently above the midline to counteract the eye's tendency to visually drop the image. (Although this visual drop occurs regardless of shape, I think it can be extra dangerous in the square.) I'll post a few example here of portraits in the "square".

First, this little oil (The Artist's Child; 12" x 12"), which is on my home page, tends, I think, to work in the square because the values read in a strong upper left to lower right pattern; this directional is reinforced by the line of vision created by the direction of the gaze. The angle of the head provides a counterbalancing diagonal.

Administrator's note: See Peggy Baumgaertner's excellent post on compositional sighrtlines at http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...=&threadid=726

Chris Saper · 08-26-2002, 07:36 PM

"Skylight", mixed media, 11" x 11".

The blue shape at the top works with the subject to again provide an upper left - lower right read; the angle of the neckline here provides the counterbalancing direction. Not only is the focal point (eyes) above the midline, but the bottom of the blue shape is positioned at the same horizon level for reinforcement.

I took great care in deciding where to place the signature, (which I consider to be an important and undervalued design element in every painting). Had the signature been placed anywhere else, I think it would have disrupted the clustering of values.

Chris Saper · 08-26-2002, 07:41 PM

Here's one more.

"Angel", watercolor, 11" x 11".

Of the three samples, this is the least "anchored" and relies almost entirely on the direction of the gaze to rescue the design from being too static.

Chris Saper · 08-26-2002, 07:51 PM

Mike, with regard to your cropped photo, I think that the arm on our left becomes too strong a visual element, perhaps because the lights form a hollow triange shape against the darks in this small format.

I think that composition is the most difficult of any pictorial element, and I wish principles of composition were more widely taught.

Michael Fournier · 08-26-2002, 08:34 PM

If I might add one thing (and I hope Chris will excuse the liberties I took in editing her images down to their abstract shapes of values): sometimes the division is not obvious to all when shown as a finished painting. So here are two of the examples posted by Chris, converted to gray values, and slightly blurred to obscure the detail some.

I don't know, but this might help some to see how well she handled these compositions. Again, Chris, these are wonderful examples. I have made a few marks to show the dissections the shapes make and the flow of the lines.

Notice in example I marked #1, how the line of the shape behind the head leads to the eyes and the vertical, or the negative, shape of white on the right actually leads your eye back to the point of interest instead of out the side. In example #2, the dark vs. light, right to left, both creates a vertical flow as well as creates a division slightly off-center. The horizontal formed by the light at the bottom left and dark on the bottom right creates a kind of low horizon line as if you are looking up at the eyes. And again, the great use of negative space in the upper right stops your eye and brings you back in.

Again, Chris please excuse my liberties here and I hope I was not off of your intentions.

Mike McCarty · 08-27-2002, 12:03 AM

Thanks, Chris and Michael.

Chris writes:

Quote:

I think that composition is the most difficult of any pictorial element, and I wish principles of composition were more widely taught.

In my humble opinion, composition is the overriding issue in all that we attempt. I don't believe poor composition can be overcome with a superior technique, good color harmony, or any other tool at our disposal.

Although most lay people would not be able to articulate their reasons, I think that art is most often rejected or accepted on the basis of composition. Do we have a kind of universal human template which governs our view (acceptance, rejection) of shape and space relationships?