Composition - examples of note

[Allan Rahbek]

Originally Posted by SB Wang

How do you describe or distinguish the style of Rembrandt,Vermeer, Sargent and Bouguereau?

I don't, I can look at those masters paintings forever and never finish experiencing new quality's.
It is not possible for me to frame them and say; that's how they are.
Of cause, if I had taken lectures I would have had some phrases to nail them to the art history, but I don't think that's good enough.

My point is that; if one really understand a thing one will be able to do it, and I don't paint like Rembrandt or Sargent

[Mike McCarty]

If I could ask the question a little differently:

Does style in any way alter the compositional choices that one might make?

I tend to think that style has little or no effect on composition, at least in the mainstream. When thinking about style the sand can get soft very quickly if you don't set some kind of boundaries. If you compared styles of the far left to those of the far right you might begin to infringe on some design choice, or alter some perceptions, I'm not sure. You can't be too absolute in your thinking.

As I ponder in my mind's eye the styles which we most contemplate here I don't see that style has much impact on design choices. We still have the same basket of can's, don'ts and should's to deal with, whether we are very realistic or highly impressionistic.

Since we view composition mainly with a blurred eye a lot of the "style" tends to get lost anyway, and what we are left with are pretty much the same shapes and masses.

Anyway, when a person that practices a particular style begins a project they would only be thinking and seeing, in terms of composition, with there own stylized eyes, and not thinking -- well if I painted in this style I would have made that choice, or if I painted like that I would do it like this. And so as we view the finished work we must accept the style that's offered and judge it as we will.

The more I think about it I don't know if my question offers any practical benefit in it's answer, or even if I've answered it necessarily. It's easy to stray when thinking about composition, it's hard to grab hold of something which offers so little absolute Truth, or absolutely False.

"When sitting for a painter you should absolutely never turn your back to him/her such that your back would be painted more than your front." This seems perfectly reasonable on it's face, and yet that would exclude one pretty nice painting back up the road a piece. We tend to lean toward things that offer a handy yes or no.

Here's a handy "yes" for me. I like this painting by Juaquin Sorolla y Bastida called: "Cabeza de Italiana" 23x16. The composition is fairly straightforward, but it's the style that keeps me hangin' on.

When I see Sorolla I also see Nicolai Fechin.

[Mike McCarty]

Here is an interesting compositional concept -- the triptych. This one is again by the Spaniard, Juaquin Sorolla y Bastida.

The size of the full painting was a little odd so I've tried to break it up into three to give a better look, but the three together: Tres cabezas de estudio, is the entire painting. He still reminds me of Fechin. I probably should say that Fechin reminds me of him.

[Mike McCarty]

And another interesting variation on the triptych by our friend Scott Bartner.

This not only shows where he ended up, but also the phases in his process.

[Mike McCarty]

I found these comments by a Mr. Damon Denys regarding composition. I don't know anything about Mr. Denys except that he fancies himself an artist and a writer on the subject. I thought some of his comments were interesting so I'll share this excerpt here:

Mr. Denys --

When judging a composition, however, one must keep in mind that the quality of a composition and the quality of the theme being presented are two different issues. It wouldn

[Michele Rushworth]

Nice quote with some interesting ideas.

I wonder about this thought, though:

The word itself, "composition", implies that the painter is composing, i.e. creating a selective, intentional arrangement.

What about unintentional ie. subconscious selection? If an artist points his or her easel or camera at a group of trees he's selecting something. What he chooses to include or leave out, how closely he wants to focus on the trees or their surroundings, etc. The decision may all happen in the blink of an eye and he may not be aware of a "selective, intentional arrangement" but it's still "composing", I think.

[John Reidy]

Michele,

I would point out that wether conciously or subconciously, the choices we make are our choices, they help define who we are.

Mmmmm. It seems that I have condemned myself to all of my sins so let me rephrase, "The devil made me do it."

[Carol Norton]

Mike, this is one of the interesting, informative and enjoyable threads that I have read. Thank you for all the examples and thoughts that you have written as well as elicited from others. Earlier, I had asked for books or other sources of information about composition. Your writings and painting examples have been very helpful.

[Mike McCarty]

You are very welcome Ms. Carol Norton. Just jump in any time.

Michele, John:

[QUOTE]A random selection of elements, or even a specific selection of elements combined in a random manner does not qualify as a selective arrangement.

inclusion of inconsequential elements will inhibit or destroy the unity and hierarchy in the painting, which, as described above, can only harm the composition as a whole. An expert visual composer doesn

[Linda Brandon]

[QUOTE=Mike McCarty]This guy surely holds the record for number of paintings of whacked off heads. Oh well, since he