Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Some ten years after writing this thesis for my bachelors degree, it finally bugged me enough to translate it to
the more accessible language, partially because of this text's popularity among my friends at the time. Some of
these views aged better than others; the point is that I at least find both interesting enough. The biggest task was
to attempt removal of the adolescent (and croatian) mysticism, and to try explaining and bringing everything to
the ground, or at least daylight. Still, there is some heady stuff here at times, so feel free to contact me if you
feel teased, cheated, or taken for a ride.
The illustrations are left as they were: images that I just happened to have taken that year, without any intent for
this purpose, and therefore quite imprecise for it - but realistically practical, for the same reason. They could be
swapped by any 6 months output of mine, or perhaps by your work too.
My final hope is to continue these thoughts into a sequel composited of all that I've managed to gather in this
mentioned ten year period since. Of course, we'll see what happens...
predrag dubravcic
introduction
This work is a result of organizing and making some sense out of a pile of marginal notes - thoughts about the
image in the last 5 years or so. Even if it grounds itself in the composition of photographic image, its contents
are so undeniably abstract and general that they are applicable to almost all visual arts. Based on the so called
"pure photography" (formally minimalist, rejecting all of the semantic content not essential for the photographic
medium itself), the thought already starts on a quite abstract ground, and develops as an deductive organism,
dealing with final, absolute, rejecting any hypothesis. I still do hope to avoid the trap of becoming dogmatic even at the price of seemingly contradictory lines: sometimes a complex system of ideas does not translate well
to the linear language we speak. That's where formalism has to give up, just so that something gets to be written
at all. I am saying all this as an recommendation for the best reading approach: logic should, at least to some
degree, be left aside. Just the same as enjoying the images themselves, we should read this beyond our rational
comprehension, using those intuitive visual thoughts of ours which exist only before they get grabbed by the
prudence of our intellect. This is also a denial of fear that uneducated eye might miss something in here - it's all
about primary biological functions of first our senses, and then our spirit as well. Problems are of the opposite
nature (and that is somewhat sarcastic) - in deformations our senses and spirit experience through ill education,
deadening, pollution by some not quite natural usages. Therefore, it is much more likely, that every time we
embark on exploring the primary visual we'll have to throw something of our "knowledge" away, than to learn
anything radically new. It's all in our eye, already.
what is composition
This "non - traditional" composition tries to facilitate its full visual
potential: only the essential is present, in careful amounts. Positions inside
the frame correspond with emotional meanings of objects. Collectively,
forces form a mutual idea, laid deeply in the viewer's impression.
levels of abstraction
For the meaning here, it is important that the
cypresses be perceived as something infinite,
dark and powerful. This distortion of real
attributes was achieved by purely graphic
means: position in frame and in relation to
other elements; distribution of sharpness; and
tonality.
Since results can be exclusive opposites, it would be wise, should an argument ever arise around an innocent
image, to refer to this little concept first for not only possible, but even probable help. Allow me just one more
example of influence the image can have: it is a motoric sensation, an impression of movement experienced by
perhaps the sight of lines that could be its trace. We should have a hard time trying to determine if this sensation
originates from empathy or relation: the impressions of us being the movement and us making it (or following
it, or observing it) are so similar - they are inseparable in the strange balance of opposites.
* - It is hard to resist smuggling in small print here how I feel that it is just this omnipresent and all - inclusive part of our being which
should be regarded as the essence, the meaning, and therefore also the absolute definition of art, or, even further, a philosophical Reason.
** - We are of course interested in all the levels of abstraction. Limited to reality, this approach is a stronghold of solipsistic philosophic
thought ("The world is my imagination" - Schopenhauer)
*** - Literature offers just too many spices to this already difficult correlation. Here is the motif - thought of Gaston Bachelard's "Poetry
of Space" - a nice ramp for return to empathy: "I am the space which I am in."
the frame
This image understands the frame as an end of
the world, and is destroyed if this approach
changes. (This is also an useful example to
check after reading a chapter on position of the
subject in the center of the image.)
frame is unbreakable; metaphysically, the idea as a world itself includes the existence of borders - in infinity.
That may serve as a best definition of frame in this conception. Whatever touches the frame, touches infinity; if
something crosses over, it crosses into nothingness.
The second cause of perceiving the frame as the end is an understanding and awareness of the medium attention towards the medium itself. This does not necessarily mean the loss of experience supplied by illusion,
since awareness is the key here, and should work to preserve that segment. It rather means an absorption,
anticipation of the medium, end of that stubborn ignorance which looks aside, just to clinch onto reality. This
particular awareness of the frame makes the foundation for the many elements of composition - directly, the
felling of every point within the image in an active, dynamic mutual relation with the frame. The indivisible
unity of frame with the image is a precondition for a health and strength of all the forces within the composition.
As if there is a way to lessen this contact, imagine some rotting tumorous tissue in that nonexisting space in
between the frame and the image, which causes the complete impurity and absence of strength: but here we are
talking metaphysics again, and not perception (that we can give examples for) - just in attempt to describe the
emotion contained in this relation. As for the examples of frame being the end of the world - image, we can find
them in the child drawings, most of the 20 century painting, pure photography, and even sometimes in film, in
the advanced use of static camera (Alain Tanner).
And just as another typical warning label, let me quickly note of the danger coming out in mixing of these two
conceptions of the frame - quite frequent in the works that balance between the dominance of the reality and the
medium: obviously, these are radical differences even in the simplest of details.
in the frame:
Here we intend to explain influences of the frame on an object within it. Moreover, all the forces acting upon an
object within the certain field of vision - the field of our image. While for the primary, orientational forces
(being left and right, and up and down) existence of frame isn't essential - it is sufficient to (self explanatory in
deed) have basic spatial orientation, all of the other forces are directly caused and determined by the frame
itself. Our illustrations try to assume the simplest possible "laboratory isolated" shape - a circle (presumably an
abstract denominator of every object's manifestation) in an empty horizontal frame, roughly proportioned by the
golden rule. The belief is that every example is applicable to any object in any other shape or proportion of the
frame. It only remains to be mentioned that in practical cases, instead of the clean and isolated influences, we'll
find a sum of different forces, often the contradictory ones, all around the very detail we are trying to figure out.
Besides, our visual memory is usually sufficient to install chaos even in a blank paper. That's why these "clean"
illustrations to follow need an equally innocent eye. From there, what follows is quite simple.
up and down
Even though the little window has the position of utmost height and
power, the claustrophobic feeling of closeness to the edge and being
squeezed by the remainder of the image turns the emotion towards
confinement, limitedness, and sorrow, despite its pride.
Let's start from the beginning. Gestalt psychology can again be helpful, to
understand the symbiotic strength of the center and frame. One draws the
energy from the other.
Center as the focus of composition, being the simplest and most direct
placement of the object into frame, can be found in most of the primitive
cultures, or in the novice use of the camera - or even still on tv, given the
weaker authority of the small and oval frame. It is only thanks to bluescreen
images behind the announcer or some sidebar that this sometimes gets avoided.
The strict, dead center (fig. 1), taken with a bit more of semantic awareness,
floods with meanings. There is immediate hypnotic effect of remarkable
strength; this center rules all sides of the image, and everything rotates around
this navel of the world. This emotional impulse invites symbolism, and some
small thing in the center can impose its rule on the vast content of our memory
bank of images and meanings. This might be the right moment to mention the
pitiful abuse of central placement in the conceptual art, which trivializes it to a
cheap effect. I still do believe in the bright future of central position, based on a
very special transcendent feel, and the immediate reevaluation of the whole
space within image, which restructures the relations according to everything
orbiting around that center.
If the position on fig. 2 loses some of this supernatural air, it trades it for the
stronger ground in the natural. Let's call this an active center, since in many
ways we still perceive it as a center, albeit possessing a clear orientation,
longing towards the closest side.
Fig. 3 shows the center out of balance. This is a somewhat defeated position, of
something entirely stripped down of all the divine aspect, and in turn given the
earthly life, sincere ordinariness.
Every movement further, as on fig. 4, is perceived as suffering the strong
gravitation of center, trying to move it from the unstable position. This force
gets weaker with the increased distance from center: it becomes more and more
neutralized by the appearance of the other attraction, the one of the frame edge.
Our falling ball, setting sun, abstract circle, was last seen right in the
equilibrium between the center and the frame, as in fig. 5. It is somewhat
surprising that nowhere before, at least to my knowledge, this simple
explanation of golden rule, or (this one is a bit rough) "the rule of thirds" in
composition, could be found. After all, we are talking about the paramount of
traditional aesthetic, on which quite some thought and paper have been spared.
This still and complacent position is characterized by comfort, eternal rest, lack
of yearning, and all that was already said about the classic philosophy of the
beautiful. (Even though sometimes even mathematics would be the more
appropriate choice of science.)
Moving ahead, we encounter a position inverse to fig. 4. The object in fig. 6 is
under gravitational force of the frame. The closer to the edge object is, the
stronger the gravity. Of course, as always, let's keep in mind the object's own
opposite force, since it is its fight that keeps it still on this page.
Fig. 7 shows the clean touch. The whole object is still visible, possessing the
magic of one which "went to the edge of the world and made it back" (and that
in one piece, too). What touches the infinite has transcendent powers, and that
is why this object has something sacred in it, like an altar.
On fig. 8 the frame has a bit firmer grip, resulting in great stability, and, for
most part, passive outlook. This form of contact depends on the particular
frame side we are anchored to, adopting it's properties.
Fig. 9 makes only a half of our object seen. Such strong division on "to be and
not to be", day and night, is a pure control of the opposites. It evokes all the
powers of symmetry, and so acquires some of the authority that image center
has.
If we see only a small part of the object, as in fig 10, the impression of mystery
will prevail. (We will talk about the relation between hidden and mystical
later.) It is known that the most of the object vanishes in the "eternal darkness".
Here, the object's power is derived from possession of that "darkness" and
"eternity", and it radiates it back into the image, from its far position on the
edge. If, on the other hand, this object is perceived as weak, this will be its
mean of retiring into eternity and reaching for those powers.
Fig.'s a), b) and c) show drastic difference in impression between something that is mechanically indeed
minimal change (such as the small camera movement in film and photography).
mutual influence of the objects
This is where we lose ground under our feet: the abundance of all that's possible within image sounds
threatening to a clear view attempted here. Not wanting to adopt guesswork as a tool, and realizing that any
analysis of such vast terrain (that surely exceeds interest of this text anyhow) would consume inadmissible
amounts of time and space, we will not undertake this task. It is highly probable that at least first steps for this
exploration can be found in "Art and Visual Perception" by Rudolf Arnheim, a book that I gladly recommend.
What we have to say on the issue is general (and our usual): do not underestimate the effect of objects within the
image. Thanks to elementary nature of many visual phenomena studied and described here, we can use those as
an alphabet in interpretation of more complex events such are mutual relations of objects inside the image;
which will at least suffice the exploratory interests of this text.
format
This image gains monumental firmness and
anchor in space and time from the horizontal
orientation, accented by the edge elements of
composition and the active empty surface on
the left.
Expect opposite from the VERTICAL format. Certain nondimensionality of space and time creates an impression of
everything happening in one point (of space and time). The
result is an extremely dynamic structure, where all is
happening in dimension of energies, forces. (No wonder this
is almost exclusive format I happened to find in portfolios
of New York photographers in early nineties.) The
aggressive character comes out of the necessity for super- or
inferiority of the elements, positioned above or below the
others. Most everything happens on relation up - down, with
all the traits of this orientation: with the tension between the
ground we fall onto, and heavens we long for. All these
characteristics are only amplified by the physiological fact
of our eye having a more horizontal field of view.
SQUARE format, rather than summing it all up, simply
sheds the attributes of horizontal and vertical altogether.
This neutrality can at times be of use, especially if
recognized and used as ambivalence, which is the most
popular reason for going square. Much less do we see this
format's potential for symmetry realized, with all hypnotic
and suggestive authority it carries forth.
EXTREME formats are in many ways just a more articulate
versions of their moderate ancestors. However, they do
inspire some original impressions. The extreme horizontal frame, found here and there in painting, and as a
standard in film (even though 1 : 2.35 is just barely wide to be called extreme), especially focuses onto a linear
course of events. These formats deconstruct the whole, translating it into a sort of one-dimensional world
(sometimes at the cinematographer's despair), so the influence of left and right is limited to relations between
the objects. In a pompous epic manner, this format was instantly recognized as perfect fit for historical
spectacles, narration in painting and similar subjects.
Extreme vertical format can be found in the far east drawings, and the turn of the century art (inspired by the
former). Its one-dimensionality is perceived as a spiritual simultaneousness of superior and inferior, or as a line
of causality, where the famous Art Nuveau/Seccesionistic "line of life" grows out from one thing into another.
Again, the influence of far sides (top and bottom here) is extinguished by the interrelation of objects within the
image - what remains is just an endless, general direction.
It is curious to note that such obvious ad first formal decision as the choice of format very much indicates
author's general psychological predisposition towards the media. A lot can be concluded from this simple
finding.
third dimension
Territory of this image is an equipoise of twoand three- dimensional, a plane and a space. A
certain perspective is welcome, but the excess
of it (brought mostly by the texture of ground)
distresses the coherency of frame.
sharpness
Almost the whole surface of this image lands somewhere around the
degree of "out of focus" - wanting to loose itself from the texture, material
and exact qualities, while still keeping the directions and ideas of the
presented. A tiny branch on top sets the sharpness standard, and also lifts
the whole construct to a keen dignity which in it couldn't have been
found.
BARELY OUT OF FOCUS is something we can still claim to be sharp, even though a more meticulous
inspection will confirm it to be slightly "swimming" in there. This adds a touch of non material to the ground
level - or maybe lifts up that material to a bit more abstract realm by removing some of the texture. So, what
still is here is the descriptive ability, with some attributes of slight immateriality.
MODERATELY OUT OF FOCUS is the first impression that crosses that disputed crude sharp/unsharp
division. This is therefore perceived as unsharpness, even though still with all the shape of the subject
represented - it is just devoid of its material attributes such as texture and finer details. Remaining shape starts
suggesting that this thing is now not material, but rather an idea of itself, an essence of it.
OUT OF FOCUS is that abundantly documented impression within which wide mainstream we should be able
to differentiate and judge most of those "in between shades" - depending on the practical situation involved.
Being the representative of unsharp, it suggests the untouchable, diffused, immaterial, abstract and an idea.
COMPLETELY OUT OF FOCUS is that last frontier before the total blur - which isn't on this scale just because
for an impression of unsharp, we do have to have some imaginary "sharp" that was undone - which something
extremely blurred into a uniform surface would not have. Since even the shape of the presented is being lost
here, what we get out is more of an essence of the unsharpness itself, than the subject.
It is hard to build the image entirely out of the unsharp matter, because such an action immediately shifts the
sharpness standard, bringing us back to the start. Therefore, an image is most often composed in combination of
different degrees of sharpness. This brings us to an overall conclusion (step back a bit to see the whole thing):
sharpness is the qualitative separation agent in the image surface, molding the most direct tissue from which
something is made. Using that principle, it can be a refined introduction of third dimension - even before it
brings us to perceptual analogy of focus in space, and organizes that space accordingly - which means an idea of
third dimension without the realistic spatial concept. This is possible because sharpness essentially does not
depend on the concrete, so it doesn't eliminate higher abstraction levels.
Habitually, we are used to seeing very far things out of focus; then all of those within the "perception range"
sharp and real, and finally very close things, foreground, out of focus again. The last two distance groups also
have an uncanny connection with the ideas of right and left: it is interesting to apply those to our scale of
sharpness as well. As far as foreground goes, its intimate framing of the image feels like a part of us, essentially
"left" (foreground, in its true intimate function, can more often be found on the frame left...), while the major
action part is most commonly expected to be on the real, earthly distance, "within the reach of the right hand".
Declinations from the common sharpness distribution are meaningful - almost related to the psychological
anomalies. The sharp background with all the closer objects blurry makes those subconscious to a degree,
hidden by a veil, while the eye wanders detached into the distance. Opposite case of only the foreground being
sharp even more intently manipulates the focus: our little piece of sharp matter is completely isolated from the
environment, self-centered, and it is so close to us (and not only in space), that it is hard not to empathize.
The term of shallow and deep focus concerns exactly the range of the sharpness scale: shallow focus
encompasses a wider range and doing so amplifies all the effects of sharp and unsharp, while deep focus
narrows that scale towards the top, so everything has the attributes of sharp, and any separation or isolation (if at
all needed) is left to other resources.
Finally, it is obvious that the sharp part of the image is traditionally valued as the center of attention. Most of
our examples fit this model, which still doesn't mean it should have such an exclusive position. Just by
recognizing the qualities of each particular level of sharpness, it must become natural to understand each as a
valid specific way of presentation. From this, it is easy to accept the attention center detached from The
Sharpest within image. Those sharper elements in such case (still) serve other functions: they set the sharpness
standard by which it becomes apparent how much is something out of focus. Just the same, they can simply be
something that is, although marginal, best represented sharper than the main subject.
matching the internal conflicts of the burdened and hermetic mind. More we approach the blue, more that
neurosis becomes controlled. Blue is completely cold, peaceful and serene color, inspiring thought. "A
delightful nothing" (Goethe), blue concentrically retires into itself and away from us - into the concentration and
foundation. It responds to shape of a square, settled and stabile, and symbolizes the absolute introversion and
spiritual clarity. At the end of spectrum, in violet, a completely different energy can be found (oddly opposite to
green in the psychological sense), with a lot in common with magical and transcendent. This light but
penetrative color may owe its powers to connecting the ends - blue and red, being exactly an octave higher (of
double frequency) from red, and inheriting some of its mystical strength.
What I forgot to mention is how these (personal, did we say) walks have little exactness, if only because of the
incompatibility of language and color (just proves that result can only reach as far as free rambling). It is still
easier to write about the shape...
A quick answer will set the black and white image to be an opposite of color. However, that still doesn't free the
ground for the pure action of shapes. The scale of gray tones hides a surprising kinship with the color spectrum.
A lot of these similarities are quite subtle, so we can hardly notice much of contraction and expansion, or
especially appearance of intro- or extroversion; even the impressions of cold and warm are more contextual
here. However, the emotional effects of tones still depend on minute shade changes - sometimes a slightly
darker photograph feels entirely different. It wouldn't be possible to go through all these tones our eye (and
heart) differentiates, not only because of their number, but also because here, unlike with color spectrum where
we can refer to particular color and be universally recognized, we don't even have some conventions to use as
firm rungs of the ladder. For that reason, let's try just an overall description. Low tones appears to be inwardly
closed, shaded and fit for mystification. There is a feeling of an exhale, warmth, and greater weight in the
saturation with black. This ends in black, which hides its content, forcing us to imagine the worlds beneath its
unpenetrable solid, all in a vivid and clear impression of passive viewer, so characteristic for perception of
colors. Black feels like a silence after the music; white responds to a pause within it (Kandinsky).
In contrast, white is an extreme explicitness, like daylight, so high tones have the impression of an inhale, light
materiality with a certain fragility, accessibility, and, conditionally, coldness. As far as the movement towards
and away from the eye, there are contradictions: ambivalence is available for use - again depending on the
context. The idea of light's nature inspires the feeling of highlights approaching, shadows departing. This is in
contradiction with aerial perspective, where haze makes distance light, or with some other aspects of perceiving
tones (such as the tactility of dark and transcendence of light). Distinction between our subject and the
background will help set the direction in many practical cases (letters standing on a top of a white paper), even
though the dark image often seems "inset" into the white wall. The old cinematic rule that a light background
contributes to the feeling of depth has different grounds: it is because the background is coming forth that we
notice the spatial arrangement to begin with. Yin - Yang theory also fights against: it understands dark to be
active - we can only explain it as an illustration of its specific thought. There is definitely a contradictory
thinking going here at some wholesale prices. However, this is not the same dialectic the other mentioned
elements of composition carry within: these are simply impressions subtle enough to succumb to a variety of
outside influences and interpretations. Knowing those outside factors will help us clean up and get to the
meaning of tones themselves.
rhythm
The rhythm here isn't very obvious, but its
appearance is quite interesting. A very static
and strong image, anchored by the central
mass, gets the first stimulus by the right
window "jumping" away from branch on the
ground. The sliver of window in the upper right
amplifies that movement to the intensively
dynamic relation. Only then do we start to go
back connecting all the rhythmic elements
(similar and not) into almost theatrically ironic
mix of the two different image halves,
successfully keeping the eye bouncing around
like a ping pong ball.
his experience, materially obviously not present in image, gets promoted into an active part of the composition.
Another words, we are the one who finishes the composition.
Psychologically concentric, the plane almost drafts us in, where in a sort of light sinking we may contemplate
on the image's content - seemingly forever. Also proving the importance of the edge elements which are,
obviously, true germs of anything that goes on in the center of plane (all of this is tightly connected to the ideas
presented in the "within the frame" chapter; it is a part of every example there).
Lastly, something maybe belonging to the top, in the definition of the active surface, should be said. This
surface is not something burdened with clumsy meanings and influences, which we either find or not and go
home free. It is simply a mean of expression composition has, sometimes subtle, but still - active.
While still having this context of thought, let's take a discourse into describing a function of mystical in image.
The reason being that the mystical is almost a "night version", unclear and impure, attractive and, most of all,
approachable variation of the communicative appeal we attribute to surface. It is easily depicted by something
hidden, which we see only a small part of. Unease created by the fear and respect towards the unknown mixes in
with the direct invitation for experience, and therefore the creation too, reconstruction of the unseen. What is
very similar to the space (surface) is the way we here have "a room for imagination" (although only on the
conceptual level). Obviously, in comparison, this is an amusement park version, active and inviting, while "the
day version" of surface requires activity on our part (isn't this also somewhat similar to perception of shapes vs.
colors?). Widely used as a spice, or vent, or "touch of magic" (or rather literary unknown), the element of
mystical has no problem admitting the limitations of the work which cannot include the whole experience
within and thus leaves room for the finishing touch of our imagination.
this isn't such a quest if the objective is only a likable and aesthetic presentation, but it becomes just impossible
if our mission is to allow every image its complete, undisturbed and autonomous life.
The size of image belongs in the same category. This is not only the physical size, but everything influencing
the angle of view: mainly our distance from it, somewhat arbitrary in the gallery, but more determined in the
printed form, and completely by the theater row (here is another difference between film and tv). Size of an
imaginary field perceived as a whole is what's at stake here. While a post stamp can hardly be observed as else
but an indivisible whole, let's just imagine a walk over a 1/2 mile enlargement: perception is down to collecting
individual elements that only our imagination can join. Every image has only one best distance for the
observation; there is only one "right" row in the theater: it is the one where we are still capable of feeling the
whole - but already have the insight into the smaller relations inside it. Emotionally, the loss of the perception of
whole feels like a certain fall in the gaps of space in the image, so, add the accentuated movement, it is easy to
understand the front row addicts.
It is also interesting how much of a difference there is between the hanging and projection of the same image mostly by changing the character of frame. The best example is a photograph on the wall, and the same
projected as a slide. First to be noticed is a different relation of the image with the background surface. Viewing
the image that's lit by the same light as our surrounding just isn't the same as looking at the image which glows
at us from the all-encompassing darkness. The mentioned spatial orientation difference aside, the isolation of a
projection also closes in on the illusion of reality, thereby shifting the level of abstraction, and especially the
importance and strength of frame. Projection makes the image more real, so empathy becomes relation, two
dimensions unfold into three, and the all mighty "edge of the world" becomes only a window into one, thus
disarming a number of compositional elements and forces. This does not mean advocating a illusion of reality
for the projected mediums, but rather an attempt for guarding the means of expression of the non-projected by
making them firmer to withstand "the darkness".
In such thinking, it becomes clear that video, so popular in its direct documentary realism, actually suffers
greatly in this exact attribute: surrounding surpresses the illusion, just as the small size and screen resolution
does; on the other side, the positive aspect of spatial orientation is wasted by the soft oval (now mostly gone) of
the frame, and imprecision of the displayed area of transmitted image. The low resolution and the pain of visible
line-texture inspire the abstract use (hence the appeal of video art), which is, unfortunately, hampered by the
ordinary commonness of the monitor, realism of the 60 fields per second movement, and the fact that we are
looking into a plain physic technical instrument - cathode ray tube. The sad reputation of video is mostly result
of this inherent contradictions.
It is by now also clear that we do not absolutely favor sharpness: this is a fundamental attribute of image, often
subconsciously perceived, and characteristically different among mediums. It is understood as a primary matter
out of which the images in medium are built, and so directly determines the workings of every compositional
element. The standard of sharpness is established not only by the technical limitations, but also by the
subjective average, physiological capacities, personal "taste" and demand of the viewer, and also his viewing
situation. Our described levels of sharpness are differently established in every medium, acquiring specific
properties. In this sense, the choice of negative format in motion picture is an early decision on the dominant
levels of abstraction, ways the expression will be carried out in the project.
The difference of b/w versus color image have been described elsewhere, although a reminder certainly belongs
to this chapter too.
What we didn't mention is the influence of time on composition - observed in basic difference between
photography and motion picture. The absence of the time flow, timelessness, is always perceived as a sort of
liberation in eternity - so we take the immobile composition just like that: once for all, without expecting a
change. Introduction of the time element has different consequences. For example, an unstable or even dynamic
composition will have a harder time establishing such feeling: it will all too easy slip into a simple expectation
of change. The duration of the film take in relation to the amount of information present is a subject for a whole
book (which has been a published dissertation of my dear professor, unfortunately not translated to english).
There are many ratios between the two with categorically different effects - one may just extend observing this
influence onto composition as well.
Obviously, as we get closer to particular nuances of the mediums, we find more and more other works that have
described those in great detail. Stopping here, we will just refer the reader to the list of supporting literature, for
the further input.
frame can be ushered, although not yet essential, and only partially effective. Sadly enough, there are too many
real developments which stop at this level (the appeal of rational perfection cannot be overestimated). However,
as much as we want to exclusively and dogmatically accept the absolute of golden rule, we must notice the
discourses in history (after the ancient period), that appear as a natural continuation of the visual aesthetic
development, although without such sleek established shape the golden rule has.
The significance of frame is increasing, and its first conscious application brings it to a function of a window (in
renaissance), from where it gradually again becomes an end of the image - this time consciously. The basic
ingredient composition gains in baroque (even though this vector is present throughout the whole evolution) is a
inclination towards dynamization of the whole structure. This is all still happening under the pretense of the
golden rule, but a whole bestiary of forces and tensions blooms there: slanted line (or a diagonal) becomes a
favorite direction of forces, counterpoint and polarities are loved, the corners of the image are utilized, and the
balance is found using long levers. The frame is readily accepted as an end of the world - even more so since
right behind is the beloved infinity.
History here elects to take a break, retiring for the moment in the forms of classicism, even though the major
direction away from the "perfect proportions" is not to be abandoned, and eventually flourishes hidden under the
intentional disarray and sensationalism of 20th century movements. The image does not include itself
completely, but counts on the finishing touch of an active perception (as described in the chapter about space
and surface of the image): what has been won is a certain "right" to imperfection: composition leans more
towards the higher, interpretational structure of forces, different from the one factually present. Interaction of
compositional forces with the frame intensifies - all up to the "penetration" of frame. There is a lot of play (use)
with ambivalence of levels or simply ways of perception, in all formal and conceptual aspects. This festivity of
derangement naturally leads itself into the compression of the multitude of elements, into the unfinishedness,
and collapse of any visual conception. Most precisely described as chaos, this is also the time of release - the
violence of forces, thanks to its own multitude, seems to have a neutralizing effect on itself. The product is the
blissful feeling of a whole, an all-encompassing universe. Embodiments of this are found in different places in
the 20th century art, in some gestures of enformel, sometimes even in the action painting, or in some strange
results of structuralism.
Chaos by its nature tends to be final stop - every of the mentioned examples either bounced back onto previous,
or found itself lost, in need of a new beginning. Therefore, to voice out what's next, is a silly bravery, or a
prophecy. Well, if intuition has a right of speech here (and it must've earned it by this page), then the following
could be sensed as a crystallization of the center amidst the chaotic and shapeless lively conglomerate. The
center which retains all the weighted meaning of the fore said chaos, the whole of the image, and the history of
the image. Some of this reverie towards the center was described within "in the frame" chapter. Even though a
complete realization of this sensibility cannot be found out there yet, in today's art a certain altar-like symmetry
is common, suggesting the importance of center. So, even without the easily uploaded symbolism, let's just say
that, in the time to come, on the way to be walked, or just as waiting on the edge of our conscious - our visual
aesthetic, or more precisely the composition, will have a notable relation with the center of image. At this
moment, this idea of composition seems to be the farthest reach of our visual intuition.
New York, 1/14 - 2/22/1990
bibliography
(Whenever existing, the english translation has been given.)
Rudolf Arnheim:
Maurice Merlau-Ponty:
Phenomenology of perception
Susan Sontag:
On Photography
Immanuel Kant:
Johannes Itten:
Paul Valery:
Essays
Vera Horvat-Pintaric:
Od kica do vjecnosti
Herbert Read:
Vassily Kandinsky:
Peter Wollen:
Ante Peterlic:
Nikola Tanhofer:
Filmska Fotografija
Nikola Despot:
Svjetlost i sjena
History of art
Jean Chevalier: