Relations among elements of a whole, if definition is what we are after. Experience of that "whole" seems quite possible, in summing up the impressions of watching, in our case, an image. It is far harder to discern and describe the "elements" and "relations" - which in fact is a direction of this thought.

"Every visual presence is a visual influence". This compact wisdom of Rudolf Arnheim wakes us up to the realization of an extremely alive, organic mechanism of composition, discouraging a clean-cut scientific approach. That is why the best foundation for this has been offered by the Gestalt psychology, which avoids former problem by explaining the perceptory phenomena's through inner instincts of a human psyche. One of the basic premises of Gestalt is that the whole is more than just the sum of its components. That is how we have to understand a composition of an image: as an conglomerate of innumerable forces, many of which are functioning subconsciously, some are hard to measure, and most of them impossible to experimentally isolate. It is only if all of them are acting in some mutual agreement that we can speak of a good composition - or, if the bunch isn't working together, a bad one.

There is no (or at least  no more)  such thing as a beautiful or ugly composition. That is generally an obsolete term which signified service to traditional esthetic - this discipline in turn aimed towards resolving of all conflicts on already first formal level (all in the unstoppable desire for eternity). The result was a premature death of almost all primary visual components of the image. All this does not mean that the "new" composition unconditionally leaves all inner conflicts unresolved, but rather that it values direct visual expressiveness before the tendency to serve something flawlessly polished to the audience. We could ironically generalize that the traditional esthetic positions itself towards death, and the new one towards life. However, that means missing the point: in fact, the main difference is in the attempt of moving expressiveness into the levels essential for media itself. Insistence on the active participation of viewer is caused by the need for him to employ his impressions which collect and bridge the gap between formal "imperfection" and ideal perfection. This intent of finishing the work by the absorption and anticipation in viewer's mind is the sign of a certain humanitarian renaissance which denies the "astral" or "infinite" beauty of the art and makes it an work of a man for another man, where both are equally important.

One of the most common attributes of a composition, which for now we will only theoretically introduce, and later explain in examples, is the ambivalence of its elements. The principles of dialectics seem to be strong here: a minute particle of the composition can often cause quite contrary effects. Which extreme will it be, depends of course on the other elements, but also on the viewer position, which can easily fluctuate between the opposites of empathy, and relation towards the image. All this isn't of much help when trying to sort the situation out. But hey, it is actually very simple - elementary physics: every force in nature has its counter force, equal in strength, but opposite by direction.

Judging from all this intentionally complicated insight, the object of our research is quite elusive. That's why it is preferred to start from the abstract and general points - to avoid misinterpretations of examples and concrete details which, naturally, always offer thousands of possible meanings and ways to take.
what is composition


This "non - traditional" composition tries to facilitate its full visual potential: only the essential is present, in careful amounts. Positions inside the frame correspond with emotional meanings of objects. Collectively, forces form a mutual idea, laid deeply in the viewer's impression.