The Cinematography of "The Incredibles" Part 2
floobynooby.blogspot.co.uk
floobynooby.blogspot.co.uk
As I understands it prevents beginners from falling for the symmetric layout / static center composition trap, but other than that I think it's just not any good indicator for a good picture.
* also applies to golden ratio and fibonacci spirals see:
The rule of thirds is just a certain way of composition and some people like its aesthetics.
Unconventional, but interesting.
I personally find the rule of thirds very effective in leading to interesting and forceful compositions.
There is one Rule of Art that supersedes any and all rules people may mention: All rules are actually guidelines. They're just things that people have noticed usually result in a more pleasing image; they're easy things to check for.
Another way to look at it is that they are markers of here there be dragons: when you know a rule, being aware that you're breaking it reminds you to make sure you're breaking it with flair, and to not break twenty other rules at the same time.
(You can even make pretty interesting work by choosing a rule and deliberately breaking it as much as you can - I've seen some very neat pieces that aggressively break the rule of "avoid tangents", for instance. Edit: even in the article at hand - halfway down the page, you'll find a sequence that is shot with everything dead center, because the moment calls for the static, deadening effect of that kind of composition.)
Or another way: all of these "rules" of art are like "patterns" and "code smells" are for programmers. Observations about broad patterns of design, notes on little stylistic tics that can add up to a big difference over the course of a large project.
tl;dr: it's a broad simplification of a complex problem into a short phrase, experts can and will go far beyond it.
That looks really hard to do.
It now feels totally natural, but the road to it was totally obscure for me until I just started taking tons of pictures. Interestingly, I now usually focus on composition / shape / focal points "consciously", planning it out, doing designs, while the more "technical" side of painting (mixing colors, brushstrokes, dark/light) is totally muscle memory.
I have made a lot of music, until it felt "part of myself", then tried out painting/drawing, which is now an integral part of my life and way of seeing the world. But my primary background and ultimately my "self-identity" is software. It is funny how art is pretty much the opposite in terms of process: I will consciously and "technically" work on the part that will affect the viewer/listener the most (composition, buildups/breakdowns in music, tension/relaxation, color/shape/form), and once a good "solution" is found the technical part of it kind of solves itself.
In software, I prefer working on system level things, threading designs, database / scaling, embedded systems. The architectural part of the system is very intuitive, I usually have an idea pop up in my head or while showering. They are often wrong, but I take care of that by doing a lot of miniature systems in their own branches and discard them when not good. However, the technical side of implementing that idea of a design is extremely demanding, and needs iterations and thinking and just plain focused work.