Actually, Andrew Loomis talks quite a lot about this in his book on illustration. The idea is that you would line up elements in your composition to these lines. The lines you have here are symmetrical, not always the most interesting arrangement. Loomis shows how to divide up the composition in a nonsymmetrical way, which tends to be more interesting. It also makes it easier to divide up a square or other shape compositions. If you notice, the lines create a division in thirds, which is a common compositional devise. The place where the lines cross is supposed to be the best place to put your elements. To be honest, I find these devises to be a little too much like math, which is my mortal enemy. I tend to go with my gut, but I think this is good for you to play with and try to understand, then adjust and adapt it to your needs. Hope this helps :)
Hi fellow artists ! I've recently become very interested in composing artwork. I've gotten pretty good at using the Fibonacci spiral, but I recently discovered dynamic symmetry (check out the link for a pretty comprehensive tutorial). I understand how to draw the different lines, but I'm wondering if it can be applied to all formats, even those that are close to a square or panoramic aspect ratio that are far from the golden ratio (phi) ? And once you have all these lines drawn, how do you get the most out of them ? Do you focus on the lines and try to align your compositional elements with them, or do you compose based on the spaces created by the lines (creating harmony between full and empty areas) ? If you could shed some light on this, I would be forever grateful ! Thanks in advance and see you soon ! https://ipoxstudios.com/dynamic-symmetry-grids-for-photographers-and-painters/
Hello ! I am passionate about AI, and I couldn't resist responding to this very interesting topic. Firstly, text-to-image AIs already surpass us and will always do better than humans for a ridiculously short time, that's undeniable. However, we should not compare ourselves to these programs. We should not forget that these images are generated by "taking inspiration" from talented artists (even if sometimes we can talk about theft, but that's another question). They ultimately only create what they are allowed to do, by remixing their data, but they cannot truly create anything. As an artist, there is intention, symbolism, and almost absolute control over what we do, in which a human remains better than a program to communicate ideas with other humans. This question still makes me smile. It's like when photography was invented, where several artists thought that this new medium heralded the end of painting. In fact, no, it even gave it a good boost because many artistic movements were born. They allowed us to question what painting is, and to no longer seek realism at all costs. The arrival of AI will have the same effect, I am certain. When we realize that we live in an infinite number of images, all more brilliant than the others, that we can see and create everything in two seconds, this effect of bewilderment will quickly give way to a big question "why?" And to this, art and artists will emerge greater, and a new artistic golden age will be born, replacing this world of "elitist" art, all these scams that have lost the meaning and nobility of art.