The Golden Mean/Ratio... - Page 2
Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 63
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    481
    Thanks
    539
    Thanked 395 Times in 174 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    its all just a bunch of babble unless it has functional application. Functional is the key word. And in order to get at function, purpose must be ascertained. And the only way to get at purpose is to go back and time and get a Tiepolo interview on tape as he's composing.

    And again, what relation is this to the original question of golden sections?

    All you are showing is that pictures graphically relate. And that some of these relations are formalized through geometry. Its a fun train to run, but where is it going?
    The function, or purpose, is create unity, vitality, energy, dynamic, rhythm, etc. in a work of art. Repetition of direction gives you energy and rhythm. The arabesque gives you a vitality and a flowing movement. Both give you unity. That's the function. When you look at a Degas or Rubens, what is animating his figures and making them look as if they're alive and there's blood in their veins? Is it copying anatomy? I think not, it's their underlying abstract rhythms they create that are animating them.

    And as for what this has to do with the Golden Section. All of the devices artists have used to organize and unify a design can be found to have their control points on Golden Section divisions. I hope that makes sense.

    "Contrary to the belief of the layman, the essential of art is not to imitate nature, but under the guise of imitation to stir up excitement with pure plastic elements: measurements, directions, ornaments, lights, values, colors, substances, divided and organized according to the injunctions of natural laws. While so occupied, the artist never ceases to be subservient to nature, but instead of imitating the incidents in a paltry way, he imitates the laws."-Andre Lhote

    Web, FineArt, Sketchbook
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  2. #32
    kev ferrara is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,059
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,150 Times in 1,700 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    John, I think it will be a good lesson if you could show how you achieve effects such as you purport to explain in the Degas, in your own works using the principles you espouse.

    If you cannot match the effects you find in the Degas using the principles you claim to be the operative and essential elements in the Degas, I think it is safe to assume that your analysis of Degas is incomplete, yes?

    The greatest lesson I have learned in compositional analysis is that we cannot see what we do not know.

    Do you know how much you don't know? No you don't.

    Epistemic Humility = Good idea.

    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  3. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to kev ferrara For This Useful Post:


  4. #33
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Gdansk, Poland
    Posts
    4,834
    Thanks
    887
    Thanked 1,568 Times in 754 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Hehe. Yeah. I often theorize on different things in art but later come to conclusion that if I can't use this theory to improve my art practically then it's rather pointless to continue thinking in that direction. If I know much more than I can then probably there must be something wrong .

    Last edited by Farvus; October 30th, 2009 at 02:03 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. #34
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    810
    Thanks
    187
    Thanked 1,366 Times in 319 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    John, I never disputed the use understructures. In fact, I've been researching this stuff on my own for a very long time, and I've read all the Hambidge books and all the books you list except the Aristedes. And a bunch of others you haven't mentioned.

    The issue I have here is the tendentiousness that all us "abstract thinkers" have a natural affinity for. I include Bouleau among us. I've had to train myself to separate very clearly what I think I'm seeing, which is more often than not synonymous with "what I'm looking for" (seek and ye shall find), versus what I am actually seeing, which is often a lot messier. I have had to discipline myself countless times regarding the question of confirmation bias, which is an intellectual failing caused by an egotistical obsession with a great idea. (In my conversations with Chris Bennett, we call this "going up the mountain." One tends to fly up the mountain with a brilliant all encompassing insight, and then trudge back down rather slowly as one begins to appreciate the complexity of the matter. What's that Shakespeare line, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.")

    For example, in your Tiepolo diagrams... I agree with a lot of your lines, and I think a lot of them are nonsense. And so what of the ones I agree with anyhow... there isn't a picture in the world that can't be diagrammed in some fancy way or another to show linear understructure. Diagrams are just opinions. You give me the worst POS picture, and I can make you a host of pretty diagrams from it. I'll make you flow charts, area graphs, outlines, linear connections, rhythms, heat maps, etc. etc. etc.... its all just a bunch of babble unless it has functional application. Functional is the key word. And in order to get at function, purpose must be ascertained. And the only way to get at purpose is to go back and time and get a Tiepolo interview on tape as he's composing.

    And again, what relation is this to the original question of golden sections?

    All you are showing is that pictures graphically relate. And that some of these relations are formalized through geometry. Its a fun train to run, but where is it going?
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    John, I think it will be a good lesson if you could show how you achieve effects such as you purport to explain in the Degas, in your own works using the principles you espouse.

    If you cannot match the effects you find in the Degas using the principles you claim to be the operative and essential elements in the Degas, I think it is safe to assume that your analysis of Degas is incomplete, yes?

    The greatest lesson I have learned in compositional analysis is that we cannot see what we do not know.

    Do you know how much you don't know? No you don't.

    Epistemic Humility = Good idea.
    Just had to preserve these in case Kev goes on another of his delete-athons.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to briggsy@ashtons For This Useful Post:


  7. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    481
    Thanks
    539
    Thanked 395 Times in 174 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    John,
    For example, in your Tiepolo diagrams... I agree with a lot of your lines, and I think a lot of them are nonsense. And so what of the ones I agree with anyhow... there isn't a picture in the world that can't be diagrammed in some fancy way or another to show linear understructure. Diagrams are just opinions. You give me the worst POS picture, and I can make you a host of pretty diagrams from it. I'll make you flow charts, area graphs, outlines, linear connections, rhythms, heat maps, etc. etc. etc.... its all just a bunch of babble unless it has functional application. Functional is the key word. And in order to get at function, purpose must be ascertained. And the only way to get at purpose is to go back and time and get a Tiepolo interview on tape as he's composing.

    And again, what relation is this to the original question of golden sections?
    That's exactly what I wanted. Which parts do you think are nonsense? I wanted to have a discussion about particular analyses. For example, in Bouleau's book he gives his analysis of Rubens' Raising of the Cross and he basically determines the principle arabesque to be this (I'm paraphrasing, because I don't actually own the book and didn't make a photocopy of this one):

    Name:  Rubens_Raising_of_the_Cross_detail1analysis-bouleau.jpg
Views: 2693
Size:  460.5 KB

    I think this is wrong (I think it's too stiff) and that it is far more likely that Rubens' principle arabesque is this movement:
    Name:  Rubens_Raising_of_the_Cross_detail1analysis.jpg
Views: 2591
Size:  468.6 KB

    I was hoping someone would take my analysis of whichever artist and say either, "I agree" or "I disagree and I think this is what he/she was up to..." That way it becomes a dialogue and we could actually discover something about what some of these artists were up to. I thought that would be interesting. I enjoy doing these kinds of analysis and it excites me. Apparently it excited me too much and I came across as demagogical. That was not my intention and I'm sorry. Of course I know I don't know everything. I had thought I had made it clear that I knew I wasn't analyzing every single aspect of a composition, but only a part of it. Back in the time of Rubens, or Degas, or whomever, they didn't have motion pictures or animation. They had to find their own way of imbuing their static work with a sense of animation, liveliness, and vitality. How does one make a static image come to life and make it look as if it has looked up to say something to you. I think that the analysis I did is part of how they did it, not all of it.

    You've suggested that it's a fools errand since the artists in question are dead and we don't have any interviews, demos, essays, or whatever have you that specifically explicate what their intentions were. You've suggested we can't know what the artists of the past's true intentions were. One of the goals of art, in my opinion, is trying to communicate with your fellow. If that's denied you (or them), then there's no point in drawing, painting, sculpting, or anything at all.

    Regarding you being able to put any grid, chart, or graph on an artwork, and make it say something, I don't think that's true. If you look at the diagonal movement I emphasized in the Degas, you'll find that it's the diagonal of the whole rectangle. I didn't just pull it out of nowhere. That's how the whole discussion was started. Someone asked how you use the Section. I tried to show that one of the ways it's employed is to take the diagonals inherent to a rectangle and use them to orchestrate a movement.

    I guess I don't realize how my writing comes off to people. I really wasn't trying to be argumentative or hostile or arrogant.

    Last edited by jpacer; October 31st, 2009 at 07:59 PM.
    "Contrary to the belief of the layman, the essential of art is not to imitate nature, but under the guise of imitation to stir up excitement with pure plastic elements: measurements, directions, ornaments, lights, values, colors, substances, divided and organized according to the injunctions of natural laws. While so occupied, the artist never ceases to be subservient to nature, but instead of imitating the incidents in a paltry way, he imitates the laws."-Andre Lhote

    Web, FineArt, Sketchbook
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #36
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Frankfort, IN
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 57 Times in 43 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I have been following this thread trying to learn and absorb it.

    I would like to see this in reverse. Instead of seeing how a painting used the geometry, I would like to see how someone uses the geometry to build a painting. There is something to be learned here. I am naive when it comes to composition. This looks like a very interesting place to start playing with theories and ideas.

    For example, I have a buttload of 6x6's that I do practice paintings on. I mostly do still life because they don't move and I work slow. Would I start by putting the grid as you have it on my canvas and start arranging the item(s) according to the lines?

    @jpacer - You come across as a guy who is very excited about this subject to me.

    @paperclip - your article on the Golden Ratio and color is very interesting. I bookmarked it.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. #37
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Gdansk, Poland
    Posts
    4,834
    Thanks
    887
    Thanked 1,568 Times in 754 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I used to be into golden section but it made me use very similar compositions and I don't like to repeat myself. I would like something more bold and unpredictable.

    The only way of using grid for composition that I found very useful was Informal subdivision from Andrew Loomis book. It's just a way of avoiding equal divisions but at the same time it gives a lot of freedom because you have some control over where and how to put the diagonals.



    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Farvus For This Useful Post:


  11. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    246
    Thanks
    618
    Thanked 98 Times in 49 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    They had to find their own way of imbuing their static work with a sense of animation, liveliness, and vitality. How does one make a static image come to life and make it look as if it has looked up to say something to you.
    ....lifedrawing...?

    Degas was constantly trimming, redrawing, and changing his compositions. I find it hard to believe this was a mathematical process and not an intuitive one.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  12. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    481
    Thanks
    539
    Thanked 395 Times in 174 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Ashton, I was talking about the arabesque. There are other elements as well, i.e. repetition of direction, enclosures, radiating lines, etc.

    Using the geometry doesn't seem like math to me. There are no numbers. It's just constructive drawing applied to design. It's just connecting points and creating relationships, in my opinion.

    Of course it's intuitive, but it helps to know what "key" you're in and whether you're writing a symphony or a gavotte.

    Last edited by jpacer; October 31st, 2009 at 12:21 PM.
    "Contrary to the belief of the layman, the essential of art is not to imitate nature, but under the guise of imitation to stir up excitement with pure plastic elements: measurements, directions, ornaments, lights, values, colors, substances, divided and organized according to the injunctions of natural laws. While so occupied, the artist never ceases to be subservient to nature, but instead of imitating the incidents in a paltry way, he imitates the laws."-Andre Lhote

    Web, FineArt, Sketchbook
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. #40
    kev ferrara is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,059
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,150 Times in 1,700 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    John, the emotional imagination will generate all that stuff... and what's more, in its proper expressionistic relationship. The intellect is completely lacking in the proper instincts to do such a thing sensibly until it has been thoroughly trained to appreciate its own stupidity and awkwardness. The intellect loves the security blanket of clean and concrete answers, even if they're clueless... even if the questions aren't even relevant, even if most of the facts are missing.

    If you start out with a recipe, you will end up with a baked good. If you start with life, you will end up with life.

    I have a link to Harvey Dunn's lecture notes on my FF thread. You should download them.

    kev

    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  14. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,448
    Thanks
    359
    Thanked 667 Times in 419 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Michael Hedges demonstrating the use of math in music.
    5:50 on
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxHR-j0nY0E

    The machine is a marker.
    2:07 on.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J_mF...eature=related

    Knowing this stuff won't make you worse.

    Sketchbook

    "Beliefs are rules for action"
    "Knowledge is proven in action."
    "It's use is it's meaning."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to armando For This Useful Post:


  16. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    32
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    so slow

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  17. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    32
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jpacer View Post
    Here's a Degas with a woman in a tub.

    Attachment 815601

    What would initially seem to make a jarring composition has been made calm by Degas. The tightly closed frame and sharp diagonal thrust would seemingly give one a sense of agitation, but because Degas has based his design principally on the horizontal he has been able to soften it. I've shown the two principle diagonals, which give the piece it's dynamic and nervous energy. I've also shown the horizontal movements running throughout and relating everything. Notice how the top of her red hair coincides horizontally with the small red pitcher and the bottom of her head coincides with the bottom of the pitcher. The top of her left foot links up diagonally with the bottom of her left hand. The bottom of her buttock links up diagonally with the large pitcher. Everything is related on these repeated directional movements.

    Attachment 815602


    I've also shown the arabesque that flows through the whole. I think it's rather elegant.


    Attachment 815603
    lol, you guys are funny



    Last edited by Pencilcandy; October 31st, 2009 at 08:20 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Pencilcandy For This Useful Post:


  19. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    481
    Thanks
    539
    Thanked 395 Times in 174 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    If that's how what I did looked to you, then fair enough.

    Last edited by jpacer; November 3rd, 2009 at 11:11 AM.
    "Contrary to the belief of the layman, the essential of art is not to imitate nature, but under the guise of imitation to stir up excitement with pure plastic elements: measurements, directions, ornaments, lights, values, colors, substances, divided and organized according to the injunctions of natural laws. While so occupied, the artist never ceases to be subservient to nature, but instead of imitating the incidents in a paltry way, he imitates the laws."-Andre Lhote

    Web, FineArt, Sketchbook
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    481
    Thanks
    539
    Thanked 395 Times in 174 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    When I did the Tiepolo and Degas, all of my lines were parallel. There's a big difference. Maybe that wasn't clear, but that's what it was about. I just said "repeated directions" when I should have said "repeated parallel directions."

    I figured I'd give an explanation of how I go about doing an analysis. Sorry I didn't get the best reproduction of the Rubens, but it was the only one I could find that showed the whole frame. This way I could be sure the image wasn't cropped. Disclaimer: These are just my opinions based on my knowledge of geometric systems of design. They are in no way definitively what Rubens did, nor are they the sole basis of his design. This is just a fraction of what I believe he's up to, but I have no real credentials. I don't earn a living as an artist and have to work a day job to support myself. I have a BFA from the Academy of Art University and an MFA from the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, for what it's worth, but I am no authority. I do this simply because I find it interesting and I believe I learn from it. I share it, because I believe others may find it interesting as well.

    Below is a Golden Section gauge I made which makes it easy to locate specific rectangles. Since all rectangles that share the same proportion also share the same diagonal, one can lay this over an image and figure out which rectangles have been used.

    Name:  Gauge2.jpg
Views: 2571
Size:  141.6 KB

    I have the 45 degree diagonal of the square, and diagonals for the phi, root phi, and roots 2-5 rectangles marked. I also have a special one marked in green. The Rubens lined up with the line in green. This rectangle, which has a 1.34 ratio, is unique. I have found that Ingres' paintings and drawings are frequently in a rectangle of that proportion. Interestingly enough, so are many of Francis Bacon's paintings. Almost all of his pieces that are part of the triptych series are 198 x 147.5 cm. What the rectangle is, is two root 5 rectangles overlapped on the points of 90 degree intersection (where one of the principal diagonals intersects with it's reciprocal). If the reciprocal diagonals are continued to the edge of the whole mother rectangle, this gives you another root 5 rectangle where it's long side is the short side of the mother. In other words, you have two overlapped vertical root 5's and three horizontal stacked root 5's. I'm not going to show the whole thing over the Rubens as this will get confusing. I'm only going to show the most salient points which will show how Rubens has used two principal divisions as control points for a series of radiating lines.

    Here's the Rubens with part one the armature of the whole rectangle. The uppermost horizontal line is denoting where the square is from the bottom. If you swing the short sides of any rectangle onto the long sides, you get two overlapped squares. This is called the Rebated Square. I'm just showing here that Rubens has placed Christ's eyes on the square if you the swing the short bottom edge onto the longer side edge. That's irrelevant to the rest of my analysis. I'm just mentioning it, because the line was already there from something else I was doing, and I don't have the time to go back and take it out. (Side note: Where the squares fall are principle divisions of any rectangle. In the Rubens, I found that he placed Christ's eyes on the square. Had the square fallen somewhere else, say the middle of Christ's chest, I would have thought it insignificant and that Rubens wasn't using the square. But since the eyes, possibly the most important element in the piece, fall right on the square, I think it's a deliberate design decision. Of course if you draw a bunch of lines anywhere, you can make it look like anything falls. What you want look for is whether or not principle elements (Christ's eyes in a crucifixion would be number one) fall on principle divisions. The square is not a random division.)



    Name:  rubens root 5 analysis1-5.jpg
Views: 2472
Size:  178.7 KB


    Below I've showed one of the overlapped root 5's. I'm not showing all of them and I'm not breaking it down any further. I want to show how two principal divisions have been used as control points. If you draw a vertical at the halfway point of the root 5, where it hits the bottom is one point (circled in red). Where the reciprocal of the root 5 intersects the reciprocal of the whole rectangle is another control point at the top of the cross (also circled in red).

    Name:  rubens root 5 analysis1-4.jpg
Views: 2427
Size:  180.0 KB

    Below I show how these points are used as control points wherein a series of radiating lines have been generated. These lines, radiating from a common point act, as fan whereby Rubens has been able to generate an explosive kind of energy.

    Name:  rubens root 5 analysis1-2.jpg
Views: 2349
Size:  178.0 KB

    Below are just the radiating lines.

    Name:  rubens root 5 analysis1-3.jpg
Views: 2268
Size:  177.5 KB


    There are, of course, other elements that contribute to this piece being a successful design. The Radiating Lines contribute to the explosive dynamic energy he's achieved (It reads as explosive energy, because the lines literally are exploding from a common point). But, please don't confuse what I'm saying and think that I'm implying that this is the only element contributing to this design. The fluidity of the piece comes from the arabesque. His arabesque is extremely fluid and easily identifiable. His whole group is one giant S-Curve. The whole movement flows through the whole incorporating the environment into the figures in a series of reverse curves. He's also used a series of circular enclosures to unify his various figure groups. I'm not showing that here, because my intention was to show how the Golden Section is used, not only to divide two dimensional space, but as a means to control other design systems, in this case, radiating lines.

    I also started an analysis of Michelangelo's Last Judgment. Here, I've just shown the Rebated Square (two overlapping squares created by swinging the short side onto the long side).

    Name:  Lastjudgementanalysis1 copy.jpg
Views: 2268
Size:  309.3 KB

    From my cursory overview I believe he has also used a series of overlapped root 5's, but I didn't take it any further. One thing I wanted to note about this piece: Years ago, when looking at this piece with a friend while squinting, we jokingly noted that the work taken as a whole reminded us of Darth Vader. I then realized what Michelangelo had done was base the design of the whole on the shape and forms of a skull. How marvelous an idea, to design a piece about the End of the World on the abstract shapes of the most obvious metaphor for death. But again, that's just my opinion. Even though a central goal of art is supposedly to communicate with your fellow man, even down through the centuries, we can never really know what Michelangelo's intentions really were. Even though we have his painting, we don't have an interview with him where he spells out his design ideas for us. We cannot use the work itself to decode his thoughts and intentions. So, that being the case, making paintings is as pointless as doing these analysis, because that communication is denied you unless you do a series of essays explaining what your paintings are about. That means there are only two reasons to make art (or do these analysis):
    A) Just because you simply enjoy doing it or
    B) To make money

    I enjoy doing it. Like I said before, it interests me and I think I learn from it. If others found it interesting as well, then I'm grateful, and it was worth it.

    Last edited by jpacer; November 2nd, 2009 at 09:16 PM.
    "Contrary to the belief of the layman, the essential of art is not to imitate nature, but under the guise of imitation to stir up excitement with pure plastic elements: measurements, directions, ornaments, lights, values, colors, substances, divided and organized according to the injunctions of natural laws. While so occupied, the artist never ceases to be subservient to nature, but instead of imitating the incidents in a paltry way, he imitates the laws."-Andre Lhote

    Web, FineArt, Sketchbook
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    246
    Thanks
    618
    Thanked 98 Times in 49 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    The lines you've placed on the Last Judgment seem completely arbitrary to me.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    481
    Thanks
    539
    Thanked 395 Times in 174 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Ashton, it's the Rebated Square, and I explain how it's constructed in my post. If you take the short side of any rectangle and swing it over to the long side with a compass or ruler, you will have a square within that rectangle. Wherever your swung line hits the side you erect a horizontal or vertical, depending on the whole rectangle's orientation. This gives you two overlapping squares. That's what the horizontal lines I drew over the Last Judgment are denoting. The diagonals are the 45 degree diagonals of the squares. The diagonals form an x-shape that's called the St. Andrew's Cross. I'm not making this crap up. The cross creates a characteristic diamond shape in the center from which one can generate a series of concentric circles, squares, and diamond shapes. There are plenty of design books, new and old, that I own that deal with the rebated square.

    Name:  rebated square.jpg
Views: 19791
Size:  70.5 KB


    Where the squares fall are principle divisions of any rectangle. In the Rubens above, I found that he placed Christ's eyes on the square. Had the square fallen somewhere else, say the middle of Christ's chest, I would have thought it insignificant and that Rubens wasn't using the square. But since the eyes, possibly the most important element in the piece, fall right on the square, I think it's a deliberate design decision. Of course if you draw a bunch of lines anywhere, you can make it look like anything falls. What you want look for is whether or not principle elements (Christ's eyes in a crucifixion would be number one) fall on principle divisions. The square is not a random division.

    Last edited by jpacer; November 1st, 2009 at 10:50 AM.
    "Contrary to the belief of the layman, the essential of art is not to imitate nature, but under the guise of imitation to stir up excitement with pure plastic elements: measurements, directions, ornaments, lights, values, colors, substances, divided and organized according to the injunctions of natural laws. While so occupied, the artist never ceases to be subservient to nature, but instead of imitating the incidents in a paltry way, he imitates the laws."-Andre Lhote

    Web, FineArt, Sketchbook
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. #48
    kev ferrara is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,059
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,150 Times in 1,700 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    All your lines on the Degas were parallel? Man, that is good. You sure know your stuff.

    I predict that one day you will teach a class in the compositional methods of the old masters.

    And someone in that class will be as impressed as you are, and one day that person will teach a class in the compositional methods of the old masters. And someone in that class will be as impressed as he was, and one day that person will teach a class in the compositional methods of the old masters. And someone in that class will be as impressed as he was, and one day that person will teach a class in the compositional methods of the old masters....

    And by this wonderful process, the linear essence of the legacy of the old masters will be passed down from master line maker to master line maker, down through the eons.

    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    246
    Thanks
    618
    Thanked 98 Times in 49 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Yeah, I get how you constructed your squares, but I don't see how any of those lines correspond to anything Michelangelo painted (I'm not too familiar with Rubens, so I'm sticking to the Last Judgment).

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  25. #50
    kev ferrara is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,059
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,150 Times in 1,700 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I never once implied in any way that parallel directions were the sole basis for a design.
    ??

    Never said you did. They were however important to your schemata.

    Since everything in art causes a movement, it seems silly to single out the most obvious methods. Why don't you discuss less-known methods using your own work as examples.

    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  26. #51
    Zazerzs's Avatar
    Zazerzs is offline ....bing me the bore worms Level 7 Gladiator: Samnite
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    866
    Thanks
    449
    Thanked 337 Times in 227 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    @jpacer Nice job on taking the time to try explaining these principals and the amount of examples to back things up. Good effort for sure.

    I always find it odd when people scoff at these theories and practices even though it would improve their work greatly,regardless of where they currently are now.

    How can knowing more about ones craft impair ones creativity, or composition sense, or what ever it might be...

    as the story goes you can lead a horse to water....

    "Talent is a word found in the mouth of the lazy to dismiss the hard work of those who have achieved."
    Anatomy Thread
    Sketchbook
    Interested in learning more about color? Read this!
    Fletcher:Color Control
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to Zazerzs For This Useful Post:


  28. #52
    kev ferrara is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,059
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,150 Times in 1,700 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    A fellow finds a weird-looking alien device with a button on it. There are some symbolic squiggles on the side of this device. The fellow looks at these symbols and they seem to him to indicate that the device might be a rain-making device.

    This fellow hands this device to you and says, when you get home press this button and it'll rain.

    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  29. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    32
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Zazerzs;2503414I
    always find it odd when people scoff at these theories and practices even though it would improve their work greatly,regardless of where they currently are now
    Some people scoff at these "theories" for a reason.

    There's no evidence I know off, which confirms in a pragmatic way that a work based on the golden ratio is visually more pleasing than one without. On the other hand, there is a great deal of evidence that works who do not adhere to the golden ratio, can be just as attractive to look at.

    When people who are convinced that the Golden ratio is the way to go are asked to show proof of this with pragmatic evidence, not an anecdotal, they can't.

    What's more, when they do try to prove that the golden ratio is visually pleasing, they often resort to painters who never claimed to use the golden ratio, where the evidence of them using it is questionable and where precise measurements which contradict the use of the golden ratio, are disregarded.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to Pencilcandy For This Useful Post:


  31. #54
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    810
    Thanks
    187
    Thanked 1,366 Times in 319 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Zazerzs View Post
    as the story goes you can lead a horse to water....

    All that glitters is not ...

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  32. #55
    TASmith's Avatar
    TASmith is offline Registered User Level 16 Gladiator: Spartacus' Retiarii
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    4,169
    Thanks
    5,094
    Thanked 2,049 Times in 1,108 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    "as the story goes you can lead a horse to water...."

    I used this to describe how I feel about certain students who don't listen in class. Apparently, there's no Slovak equivalent. It's just not that dry here.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  33. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    4,416
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 643 Times in 301 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    The Way In

    Any compositional axiom or device to get ones
    mind functioning at the beginning of the
    process of entering the creative "zone" is
    a benefit to the practitioner.

    I know many painters that use some
    sort of grid or golden section to get into
    the surface design of their works.

    Most successful paintings require some
    element of composition or design to be effective.

    Having an approach which involves some
    intent of that design does not insure that one
    will create a successful painting
    it simply increases the odds.

    Many painters jump right in and
    occasionally produce excellent works.
    They would produce a greater percentage of
    good paintings if they started with a
    stronger direction/intent/idea/concept.
    It is hard to know if you have arrived if
    you don't know where you were going.

    I use a grid mainly to focus on the process but
    quickly forget about it once I am into the painting.

    I do agree that many books on composition force
    the logic onto many paintings that may or
    may not have started with a mathematical schematic,
    however the fact that these paintings seem to
    fall into the system seems to indicate that
    many great painters sense this order intuitively.

    Now go to your studio and paint something.


    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  34. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to mentler For This Useful Post:


  35. #57
    kev ferrara is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,059
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,150 Times in 1,700 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I think we can all agree on mentler's summation of the thread.

    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  36. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,972
    Thanks
    1,331
    Thanked 1,923 Times in 757 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    jpacer: My teacher and mentor Euan Uglow used the ancient geomety you have been talking about very intensly in his paintings. I questioned him about it incessantly because his paintings were so dammed good, so dammed beautiful, so dammed seductive. I was thirsty for his secret and felt that here was a man who had objectified a way of attaining, a way of touching the flame of beauty itself.

    I came to know him and his working methods well (I shared a house with one of his models for a time!) and I finally came to understand that there was no such secret. Euan was using geometry simply so that he could, as he often referred to it, "believe in the picture". It was a method suiting his steeply pragmatic temperament which found it vital to trust in something concrete as he was building his paintings. Without it, he felt things were getting too flippant. He stressed over and over again that this was only used in order to give him a "kind of security" in the process of discovering the beauty he wanted to make manifest on the canvas out of the model he was staring at in the studio. He once looked wrily at me after one of my questions and said "beauty is never invented".

    He told me directly that all the geometry in the world could not make a good painting.
    As I came to understand, it was for him, only a way of remembering the location of the door leading out of the garden of intoxicating imaginative delights, so that he could return and lay them out for us upon a canvas sheet in the vernacular of the world outside.
    And that is what all theory should be - a way in and a way out of the imaginative garden. But the keys to it not only change from era to era but from temperament to temperament.

    Here are some of his paintings, starting with a painting called 'Root Five Nude'.........

    Name:  Uglow%2BRoot%2Bfive%2Bnude.jpg
Views: 2869
Size:  290.3 KB

    Name:  uglow.jpg
Views: 2107
Size:  71.1 KB

    Name:  uglo_0025fm_3.jpg
Views: 1831
Size:  107.0 KB

    Name:  Uglow%2Bgirl%2Btree.jpg
Views: 1913
Size:  199.0 KB

    Last edited by Chris Bennett; November 21st, 2009 at 09:50 AM. Reason: comprehension
    From Gegarin's point of view
    http://www.chrisbennettartist.co.uk/
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  37. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Chris Bennett For This Useful Post:


  38. #59
    bhanu's Avatar
    bhanu is offline Registered User Level 16 Gladiator: Spartacus' Retiarii
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    dilli, India
    Posts
    4,560
    Thanks
    2,353
    Thanked 1,440 Times in 766 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    CHris -WAit, you are Euan Uglow's student??????

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  39. #60
    bhanu's Avatar
    bhanu is offline Registered User Level 16 Gladiator: Spartacus' Retiarii
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    dilli, India
    Posts
    4,560
    Thanks
    2,353
    Thanked 1,440 Times in 766 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I do agree with Chris here, Technique is only a mean(medium, just like oils n acrylics), thats why I sometimes wonder what some of the highly finished art here means. Its good, most of these artists I ponder over can kick me in the balls with their techniques , but still nothing much comes out of it, sweet looking stuff-just another dose of saccharine. The same with a whole lotta classicists and romantic artists. Their stubborn stride towards the perfect sucked the life out of the works. I dont like going too much into the paintings with all those little compositional/scientfic methods, then it all just feels so cold, hmmm, like alma tadema's marble paintings.
    That path to perfection (of which perfect composition is a part) is tricky, i think it helps lots to look at the perfection of everything, how by just being itself something beings perfect, it being not much mindful to conform to the ideals.
    Just my two cents.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 3

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •