As a last step towards the concrete
and practical, attention devoted to this subject will help clear the way
in the everyday interpretation of the visual composition. This text had
in mind following media (all with significantly different impression of
composition): mainly photography and film, then painting (including drawing
and graphic arts), all in different possibilities of presentation. With
all the respect to the three dimensional composition of sculpture and architecture,
these have been somewhat put aside, I guess in regard to the importance
of frame in this study. For the same reason, the theater (including the
dance, and opera), often can be interpreted in relation to the frame,
conditional to the traditional division between the stage and auditorium,
and created direction of sight.
Please excuse avoiding the tedious description of every mentioned medium
and its specifics. Media are in this regard described mostly by the level
of abstraction they use, similarities and dissimilarities to the reality
that they consist of. Let's just try to address "whatever we haven't" -
mostly the context of our real contact with the medium. A painting, drawing
or photograph can be found on the floor of a studio, or printed in a book,
or perhaps in the magazine folded in our pocket. Not even going into what
print reproduction can do to an image, or the obvious influence of the
magazine layout, there is one fundamental difference between having this
image in our hand, and standing in front of it hung on the
gallery wall. There is a difference of relation - between something
as intimate as our pocket, and as pompous as the Louvre wall.
Besides, the image on the wall is firmly anchored in the specific spatial
orientation. That's why the hanging is so important: I have to mention
the fear I always had towards the arrangement of my works on the gallery
walls; there always seems to be only one right combination (which has to
be found) - mostly in relation to the other images, and then of
course to the interior design and architecture of the place - a "neutral
spot" is a myth. All 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. |