40 Landscape Composition Tips

[Farvus]

I found some really nice article which explains basic composition "rules". It's focused on peaceful landscapes but I think some parts of it can be applied to many other types of art such as illustration.
What I find great about it is that it literally covers most of basic mistakes that I see people make (and I make :P). It's also great beacause it's quite easy to understand and shows very clear visual examples. I highly recommend it to every beginner.

It's direct link to pdf file so use right click and "Save target as"

-> http://sct.emu.edu.tr/itec465/Article%20Landscape%20Composition%20Rules.pdf


---

[kev ferrara]

Thank you Farvus...

This is my opinion: We should all be aware that this artist is all about pleasing housewives so they purchase his quaint landscapes for their kitchens. Most of his formulas are geared toward that relationship. This is the *opposite* of a dramatic relationship. In dramatic illustration the narrative meaning of gesture matters and every square inch of the canvas is designed to add to the narrative. In these landscapes, nothing matters except "not offending". Thus, these thoughts can seriously harm a narrative artist's understanding of composition.

This should be described as "some thoughts on creating pleasant compositions".

It also should be noted that while half of what he says should be very helpful to a beginner, and a good refresher course for the more experienced, the other half of what he says is just flat out nonsense. And this, again, is because he does not understand dramatic narrative at all.

kev

[Saturns Gate]

Some things I dont totally agree with, but there were a few that raised my eyebrows. :) Good stuff man, thanks for the find!

Sean

[Farvus]

I agree that some tips are arguable. Especially when someone wants to create something more advanced.
For example not showing geometrical forms can be good for some peaceful village but doing the opposite would work for some futuristic scene with hi-tech machines :).

That's why I mentioned it's only BASIC stuff. You can go much deeper, break some of those "rules" and get even more satisfying result.

[kev ferrara]

Farvus... again, I want to thank you for posting this treatise and I want to encourage everyone to read it...

To your points... On "knowing and breaking the rules".

The problem is that these principles are not actually the basics. They aren't the rules. That's the danger. They are just quick tricks for finishing a certain type of art. These tricks aren't even about improving the art, necessarily. Just correcting disharmonies in the most obvious manner possible.

The fact that the artist has no idea why any of these principles work for his style of art, proves he doesn't understand the basics. He simply understands "pleasantness".

The basics are much more about expression, content and "unified effect"... about encoding one's psychology in the work. This artist has nothing to say about any of those essential points. Which is why his works are so "absent" and why his "principles" are interchangeable... they can work for any composition at all. This leads to banality. And banality is the dread enemy of Dramatic Art, not to mention all Art.

The "real" basics are so basic they can't be broken. They have to do with being a real human being.

This is not to say one shouldn't have a focal area. But there are soooo many different ways of establishing a focal area without resorting to these barn-painter clichés. Never trust a boring artist!

All to say....

Quick and pretty fixes are very seductive. They readily screw the imagination.

kev

[Elwell]

Once again, for those who want the real, absolute basics:
http://www.amazon.com/Picture-This-How-Pictures-Work/dp/1587170302
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41XJ6SW0HVL._SS500_.jpg

[Farvus]

Haha. OK. Never Trust a Boring Artist :D.

Thanks Elwell. I finally need to buy this book.

[J Wilson]

I took a quick look at the first few pages of this before I left for work this morning. From what I saw, this isn't a bad beginners guide, at least giving the new artist something to consider as they create their compositions. You can take it or leave it (I think even the author called them "tips" rather than rules), but at least it gets the artist thinking a little more about various factors. Like many people said though, it doesn't fit all types of art/illustration, but I think it could still be very useful for newer artists to make them think about what their intention actually is.

[kev ferrara]

I think it could still be very useful for newer artists to make them think about what their intention actually is.

This is the thing, it never talks about any intentions except those implied by the "techniques" being offered. Which are just about pleasantly "directing the eye" toward.... something pleasant... and away from the edge of the canvas.

The very trouble is teaching newer artists that art is all about gently leading the viewer toward something in the center. And that ain't what art is all about. So why teach incorrect information to new artist?

Falsity should never be taught to artists. A highly absorbent artist can waste years trying to synthesize what he feels he wants to express with the rules of Dogma passed down to him from his "elders".

[Farvus]

By the way.

I often heard advice that there should be one main focal point in the picture while there are some examples of concept art that have something completely different. There are for example some full figure character designs which are equally tight on every part and they seem to have several focal points. Such pictures still work and are interesting to look at.
Is it absolutely necessary for picture to have one main central point?

[Elwell]

I often heard advice that there should be one main focal point in the picture while there are some examples of concept art that have something completely different. There are for example some full figure character designs which are equally tight on every part and they seem to have several focal points. Such pictures still work and are interesting to look at.


A character design fulfills a different purpose than a narrative illustration.

[dose]

Falsity should never be taught to artists. A highly absorbent artist can waste years trying to synthesize what he feels he wants to express with the rules of Dogma passed down to him from his "elders".

Do you think it's possible to teach without imparting "dogma"?

[Elwell]

Do you think it's possible to teach without imparting "dogma"?
Perhaps not 100%, but staying away from "never" and "always" goes a long way.

[J Wilson]

This is the thing, it never talks about any intentions except those implied by the "techniques" being offered. Which are just about pleasantly "directing the eye" toward.... something pleasant... and away from the edge of the canvas.

The very trouble is teaching newer artists that art is all about gently leading the viewer toward something in the center. And that ain't what art is all about. So why teach incorrect information to new artist?

Falsity should never be taught to artists. A highly absorbent artist can waste years trying to synthesize what he feels he wants to express with the rules of Dogma passed down to him from his "elders".

You are probably right, I actually didn't get a chance to look at it very much before I left for work. In the first few pages it talked a little bit about techniques for leading the eye around the image, which I think is useful to bring up because many beginner artists just sort of plop down their elements haphazardly without much real thought about the effect on the viewer. I think for early artists anything that makes them stop to consider the "big picture" is helpful. Get some of the mental cogs turning.

I think many artists go through a stage where they are a little bound up by the "rules", but eventually (hopefuly anyways) you learn to pick and choose the ones that apply to what you are trying to accomplish, and you go back to relying on your instincts, but this time with some knowledge under your belt.

[kev ferrara]

The Dweller... I think you are right generally, but the point of teaching is to free with principles, not bound the artist with rules. There is an ocean of difference between a principle and a rule.

On Dogma... There are lots of different roads to Dogma. But the root of it always seems to be some kind of false choice. "There is the enemy, here is the solution. There are no other factors to consider." The obvious one is "Always do it this way and it will look right, and never do it this way because it will look wrong". Implicit in this command is the idea that there is no 3rd way... or 4th way or 68th way. And that "wrong and right" are the decisions motivating every choice... all the brushstrokes, the lines, the whole composition.

Principles don't proscribe, they free.

The 40 tips seem to be principles, but then they offer false choices. "This looks wrong, but this way looks right". Again, implicit is that there is no 5th way, or 10th way. Don't point to the edge of the canvas. Why not? I can show ten composition right now that point to the edge that kick ass. Don't touch the edge of the canvas. Why not? I can show ten compositions right now that touch the edge of the canvas. And there are dramatic principles why certain forms touch the edge of the canvas and why certain others don't. Why isn't he telling us the reasoning behind the "principle" to stay away from the edge of the canvas?"

He also has a demonstrable lack of narrative understanding. Which is why the tips imply that there is no meaning to the choices other than to make the picture look good or right... There is no difference between any two choices that are in harmony. This is decorative thinking, not narrative thinking.

Good advice offers principles that lead to a profusion of ideas. Not a limitation on them.

Farvus... "Focal point" is one of those pieces of advice that works for certain compositions but not for others. "Point" is the problem word because it implies a dot on canvas. It ain't necessarily so. For instance, "making a point" in conversation requires saying a bunch of things that lead to the understanding of an idea. This idea might come all at once like the dot at the end of the sentence . or gradually unfold. Whether the point comes all in a bang like an O. Henry ending, or whether the whole meaning unfolds gradually are storytelling choices.

For a portrait one might say "Jake had a face like a St. Bernard". This is like a Focal Point. A single clear metaphor.

For a story one might say "Jake trampled along in the waist deep snow, huffing and spitting, the snow freezing to the wild strands of his hair. He licked his lips and felt the wetness turn to ice as it dripped down his jowly bearded face. Where the hell were they, the fools?" This is more like a gradual reveal of information that leads to the metaphoric equation.

kev

[sve]

What dogma? Did you read the article before criticizing it? In the very beginning, in the first paragraph he says it is all relative "rules", don't let them hinder your work.
Those paintings are not his art, he just selected them as examples to demonstrate his thought.

He doesn't say we need to lead our viewer to the center of the image, he said we need to lead him to the center of the interest and it could be more than one centers of interest. Center of interest can be anywhere in the image and he demonstrated this by few images.

In my opinion he explains every observation he mentioned in his article.

Not to point to edges he explains is because not to let the viewer go out of the picture, on the contrary try to hold his attention longer.

Every time he writes those are recommendations and never tried to say those are must.

[kev ferrara]

I think I stated that these were useful thoughts and should be read. And I also mentioned that their dogmatic aspects was implicit rather than explicit. I don't think I need to restate that.

The explanation he gives for not pointing out of the canvas is woefully insufficient and displays a misunderstanding of how to use the canvas frame to narrative advantage. The dogma is contained not in his tips but in his explanations.

Furthermore, what is the purpose of holding the attention of the viewer if the artist has nothing to say? This is the same as his "make meandering lines lead the eye in to the composition". Also dogma. I can show a thousand pictures where a striking starting vector begins the composition. I can show a thousand pictures where objects point out of the frame, and they all work. Vectors are relative. A weak vector can be dominated by a strong one. Important information over-matches uninteresting information. Pictures aren't simply a collection of arrows and eye paths. We aren't drawing diagrams here.

This is the problem. No artist who knows what he is doing compositionally would think any of this stuff is worth saying *in the way he is saying it.*

(Do not bother to respond to this post sve. As I have stated previously, I generally have no wish to engage with you. I wrote this for others on this thread who might have had the same thoughts as you about the matter.)

Thank you for your understanding.
Kevin

[arttorney]

"Please read my previous post carefully."

It's a rather lengthy dissertation on a subjective topic and has a paragraph break pretty much at the end of each sentence. The proposition of reading it carefully is a little bit daunting, frankly.

I think Farvus was just trying to share information in a general and offhanded way. People who really need help can probably gain some insight from the article. The people who know enough about art to get involved in elaborate theoretical internet discussions probably already know what information they will pay attention to and which information they will blow off.

Human nature being what it is, I think nobody will actually accept anything in that article (or in this thread) as a mandatory rule that must be followed without fail for the rest of their lives. Most will probably forget the details within a few days and in a year will barely remember they ever read any of this stuff. (Well except the part about Xs being unpleasant.WTF?)
____________________________
Never trust an overly keyed up artist with too much time on his hands.

[sve]

If you don't want to engage, don't get engaged... what are you doing now? If you want to limit our encounters it should be all your limitations, because I'm fine without them. I will write where I want without checking with you.
You didn't read the article and you attacked the writer without knowing what he's suggesting. The writer is very careful to explain that all those are just suggestions which might improve composition of your picture. This is information one should analyze and decide if he wants to apply to his own image. Author said it several times in his article
Art is subjective, if you think some image is not worthy of your attention, the artist might have better luck with the next person. It is always better to allure your viewer to your image in any possible ways, which he summarized and generously offered.
I read this article some time ago and I found out that his observations work on many paintings I observed after that.
Of course many things work and produce certain effect in image but if you can improve it with changing even something little you should consider to use the opportunity. That's what he suggests.

Farvus when he talks about not using sharp perfect geometric shapes like a triangle or rectangle in your image and advices to breaks the shape with something, make it less perfect, in my opinion it makes sense. Because those geometric shapes are very noticeable, they are attention grabbers, immediately become a focal point and you need to be careful if your don't want this effect.

[HunterKiller_]

Kev: Could you please show me some compositions that touch/point to the edge of the canvas?
I was taught in high school art to never do this, and it kind of stuck. I automatically avert such scenarios in composition.

[kev ferrara]

HunterKiller... see any picture by Phil Hale.

The problem of the edge of the canvas is not caused by "pointing out of the canvas". It is caused by a "touch" tension with the canvas edge that is out of harmony with the narrative. If pointing out of the canvas is part of the story, then it is fine. If more interesting information is still left to read, the vectors leading out of the composition are nullified. (see attachment) If the picture is a vacuous piece of decoration then a vector leading out of the picture is just as interesting as looking at the picture.

Oh, on triangles... Frazetta says he deliberately composes in triangles. The history of art is filled with greats who compose with triangles. Tiepolo seems to have been obsessed with them. Richard Schmid says in Alla Prima that the first shapes he likes to paint in are the triangles. Check out Kevin Chen as he describes the triangles that appear in the negative spaces on figures.

[sve]

We are discussing not the composition built in shape of triangle but using triangles or any other perfect sharply outlined shape as a detail of compositions, part of image, like windows in the house as was mentioned in the article. If you don't want them to pull an attention from the rest of the image the author suggests to slightly block then, overlapped them with another object or change the perfect shape in some way.
Examples of the objects pointed our of image you can find in the article as well, but you can see them balanced by values, contrast...

[sve]

I said the triangles are bad? You have nothing to say about topic so you decided to insult me. Well that says a lot about you.

[sve]

What this has to do with a topic of conversation? Why are you discussing me and my art? I don't care about your opinion on this matter so don't bother to open your mouth about it. Where did I say triangles are bad? please show if you are so sure I said it. Otherwise it is twisting of my words.

[emily g]

Cool it, guys.

[Dave Kendall]

I always appreciated the simpliicity of this quote by John Raynes. He was applying it to anatomy but it could be easily applied to most artistic issues.

"If it looks right, it is right-If it looks wrong, it's wrong, even if it makes sense."

I believe all rules and principles should only serve the reasoning above.

[J Wilson]

I always appreciated the simpliicity of this quote by John Raynes. He was applying it to anatomy but it could be easily applied to most artistic issues.

"If it looks right, it is right-If it looks wrong, it's wrong, even if it makes sense."

I believe all rules and principles should only serve the reasoning above.

Sounds an awful lot like one of my illustration instructors back in school. He would rail on anyone who tried to use the weak excuse of "it's what my reference does," because obviously even if it's "right" you discard it and try something else if it weakens your image. We're artists, not machines, and we make decisions for ourselves to make the most effective image we can. Often time that means discarding (or at least altering) what is true and using what is effective instead. That applies all the way down to basic "rules" sometimes.