Dmitry Prikhodko, Reading the comments feed from newcomers to the FC, this is the third time today I've encountered criticism of the "composition" in various images. Dmitry, would you mind explaining what you mean by this mysterious term? I would be very grateful for a sensible (finally!!!!!!!) explanation.
Alexander Zeonoff, This is only for those who, having picked up the basics from less-than-competent sources, haven't spent any time realizing that the common definition of this term is practically nonsense. And nothing more. *** For example, I see a CLEAR composition in this picture. And why Prikhodko doesn't see it, we'll hopefully learn from his revelations
Dmitry Prikhodko, Reading the comments feed from newcomers to the FC, this is the third time today I've encountered criticism of "composition" in various images. Dmitry, would you mind explaining what you mean by this mysterious term? I would be very grateful for a sensible (finally!!!!!!!) explanation.
Andrew Kud, Composition, Andrey, is the author's statement. The meaning and spirit embedded in the work. They are what distinguish a genuine work from a fake. By the way, don't confuse the genuine with the relevant. For only the genuine is relevant. )) The rest is the insinuation of activists and businessmen.
Thousands of paintings hang on the walls of museums. How can one distinguish the genuine from a craft? How can one distinguish a composition from an arrangement? By what the artist intended and what the viewer (even if not everyone) perceives. By the spiritual energy emanating from the canvas, transforming both the viewer and reality.
The Son of God within the lines of the sacrificial bowl in Rublev's Trinity—that's composition. And arranging the horizon in thirds is, at best, arrangement. In the ordinary sense, it's a template. The volumes, brightness, colors, contrasts, and lines have been well-arranged—okay, we've achieved harmony. But not composition.
Dmitry Prikhodko, I expected something like this nonsense from you.
Andrew Kud, well, I didn't expect anything from you at all after looking at your portfolio, which doesn't contain a single photograph. Which means, most likely, you're incapable of even thinking.
I agree, it was my mistake to respond to you before looking at your "works." Which, I suppose, all of them have, as you call it,
Reading the comments feed from newcomers to the FC, this is the third time today I've encountered criticism of the "composition" in various images.
Dmitry, would you mind explaining what you mean by this mysterious term?
I would be very grateful for a sensible (finally!!!!!!!) explanation.
***
For example, I see a CLEAR composition in this picture.
And why Prikhodko doesn't see it, we'll hopefully learn from his revelations
Thousands of paintings hang on the walls of museums. How can one distinguish the genuine from a craft? How can one distinguish a composition from an arrangement? By what the artist intended and what the viewer (even if not everyone) perceives. By the spiritual energy emanating from the canvas, transforming both the viewer and reality.
The Son of God within the lines of the sacrificial bowl in Rublev's Trinity—that's composition. And arranging the horizon in thirds is, at best, arrangement. In the ordinary sense, it's a template. The volumes, brightness, colors, contrasts, and lines have been well-arranged—okay, we've achieved harmony. But not composition.
I expected something like this nonsense from you.
I agree, it was my mistake to respond to you before looking at your "works." Which, I suppose, all of them have, as you call it,