No, I am not a fan, personally, (nothing against, I just don’t fit the profile of the target demographic) but yes, with two grandchildren already I know there is a show called Sponge Bob Square pants on Nickelodeon. And, I am told it is a runaway success with kids of all ages… What does this have to do with Photography you may wonder…
As it happens… I heard a story on NPR this morning that SBSP’s creator (Stephen Hillenberg) was told early on that the show would never succeed… because it violated all kinds of cartoon rules… a square shape and yellow color, two big no-nos, prominent among them. But.. the experts were proved wrong.
I am not familiar with cartoon rules, especially for the pre-school crowd, but I am very familiar with the rules of composition, and technique derived and refined over millennia of human experience in the arts of visual communication. For a nature photographer such rules are an excellent guide in composing a scene in the field. But only as a starting point. Because not all scenes can fit within the boundaries of such rules. Maddening though it may be, every experienced photographer knows that some times the most effective image is the one that violates a bunch of rules. If we always try to squeeze a scene within established rules we often end up with compositions that look ‘forced’ and artificial’. Sometimes it is best to think outside the box and let the scene dictate how it wants to be communicated. Sometimes it follows its own rules. Sometimes, as in trying to tame a wild river, it is best to go with the flow
A self-described teacher of photography recently pointed out, in an online forum, that this image (“A river runs through it”) is a throw-away because it violates several rules of photography: 1. there are areas so dark that they contain no visible detail whatsoever, 2. Some spots are so bright that, likewise there is no visible detail and 3. the subject is too centered in the frame. All true statements, actually. Indeed all are violations of the rules of visual communication and all… deliberately so! Because this was indeed the best way to communicate the emotional impact, the drama of the scene as I experienced it.
Through the ages, visual artists have deliberately violated such rules. Rembrandt comes to mind, e.g. his work “St. Peter in Prison” Interestingly the same criticism can be leveled against this image, as against my ‘river…’ 1. Some areas are too dark (around the edges) 2. Some are too bright (e.g. St. Peter’s forehead) and 3. The main subject is mostly centered… Sound familiar?
No, I wasn’t thinking or Rembrandt when I made my image, but I deliberately darkened some areas to prevent the eye from being distracted by unnecessary detail, deliberately let the water highlights be “blown” (the common term for “too bright to the point of lost detail”) to maintain the ’sparkle,’ and deliberately kept the river near the center to preserve sufficient ‘forest context’ and the dappled look of light and shadow interplay on either side. Result: a match to what I experienced in my personal encounter with that scene.
I say let’s learn the rules and use them but let’s not become slaves to the rules… Remember Sponge Bob…
OK, I don’t know where I might have put the power line if I was in charge of route selection but, still… I wonder if ‘aesthetics’ was even on the checklist???
have invited us to exhibit, we accepted, and we are now formally scheduled to display some of our recent work during the month of August. The reception is on the first Friday of the month (August 7) –during Camas’ “First Friday Art Walk”. You are all invited. (When was the last time you visited downtown Camas? You may be pleasantly surprised.)
