View Single Post
Old 04-27-2005, 01:23 AM
sohrab sohrab is offline
TE Expert
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,214
Default Re: 1.61803398874989484820458683436563811772030917980

nice article
but i left out the last bit as i was running out of patience.

i wouldn't call them rules, but inferences of certain randomly repeated experiments.

let's call them rules.
however these are the rules that are are in context to the subconscious actually.
when you are taking a photograph are you actually aware what your neurons are upto? or rather what others neurons are upto?


there is a mention of the chola sculptures and the western sculptures and how people from the west found the indian sculptures quite weird and all

so are we supposed assume that there are separate "rules" for india/cholas and the west??????

ok hypothetically speaking there are different rules...

then is indian art allowed to crossover into western art??
or going back to the article.. are westerners ALLOWED to fuse the chola art styles with their own?? i.e. will the west get to see voluptuous sculptures of their own???

(i'm using the word "ALLOWED" since we are talking RULES here)

if yes... that means the rule is being broken... and if this is a general case then the rule automatically become non-existant.

so speaking of today... don't you think art in whatever form is getting more and more global.. take a look at most of the top photographers for instance.. do you see them following separate rules or any rule at all???


go back to the bresson's early years. the so called "rule" of portraiture at that particular time. sit in front of the camera, stay still look into the camera and pose..
what did bresson do instead???
he's said to have been an anarchist!!


"In other words human artists through trial and error, through intuition, through genius have discovered the figural primitives of our perceptual grammar. They are tapping into these and creating for your brain the equivalent of the long stick with the three stripes for the chick's brain. And what you end up with is a Henry Moore or a Picasso."
------- from the article in the link

since i haven't really indulged in picasso etc.. i'll stick to photography here..
and will use bresson here instead of picasso

using my point no. 5........

since bresson's early years, photography all over has evolved immensely.
perceptions have changed.. a lot of people are accepting new ideas..
a lot of people are making way for photographers like antoine d'agate who is obviously a hardcore believer in some rule that i'm not aware of as of now...
now looking at the evolution of photograph and the changes in perception, are we saying that rules are changing simultaneously???

if not...

then i'm afraid that the rules are outdated and a lot of the extremely good photographers are not adhering to them.. are they anomalies???? there are too many of them out there to be anomalies.. which brings us back to the rules.. do they really exist?

if yes....

well if rules keep on changing then i'm curious to know.. if it is the changes in rules that are leading to the evolution of photography??? or is it the evolution of photography which is leading to the changes in the rules..

in simple words..
do you normally say.. "oh man!!!! look at this photograph.. NOW THIS IS THE WAY A PHOTOGRAPH SHOULD BE TAKEN"


do you say, "WOW!! the rule ( for example the rule of thirds) is being conformed to, LOOK AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH"

personally speaking.. i felt a little dumb even writing the second one..( just a personal opinion and no offence meant to the people who feel that way)


ok i have so much bitching to do about the article above.. but keep losing the thoughts i get..

but my main problem/s with the article in the link is that the writer seems to have made it seem like what it says is the absolute truth..

to me, it's mere speculation, because

a) the human psyche is far more complex that that of a chick or a rat. atleast in most cases :) if it was so easy to reach a conclusion regarding the subconscious the world would be very different.
you should realise that behaviorial scientists are still working on things like "common property resources" and stuff.. and with the introduction of evolutionary game theory there is some randomness also coming in. also common property deals with group behaviour and includes customs, tradition etc. scientists are still trying to get more effective solutions to the problems of common property resources
rules are effective here because the consumption of resource by one person reduces the consumption by others..
however it's difficult to apply the same to perceptions

art is something more complex than common property

b) you have to also take into account "differences in tastes"

c) the evolution bit has been ignored.. atleast till the part i read

(ok i switched to replying to jose's note, so now i've forgotten what all i was about to write)

sorry.. can't retrace my thought..
the only thing that remember is that this would be an interesting read while taking a dump :) but i would not give it a serious thought beyond that

now the rules that i was talking about were rules like "rules of the third" and so on.. namely a photograph SHOULD BE like this or that...something that even you seem to have at least a little bit of a problem with.

when i say rules of thirds is trash , it doesn't mean that i don't ever place my subject in 1/3rd of the frame and all that.. but i don't do it because i'm conscious of a particular rule...

having guidelines is something , but having a set of rules which demarcate your perception and viewpoint is certainly stagnating in my opinion..
and the problem is that people tend to get a little too caught up in rules. hence rules are just trash..
afterall how many top photographers do you come across adhering to certain rules..???

p.s. hey i wrote this in a hurry and in the middle left it to reply to other messages.. so this whole note of mine might get quite confusing. if thats the case then just ignore it..
Reply With Quote