How to use this Page

So it really begins in the early 20th century, the very era of the birth of art dubiousness? The spiral as an art compositional device, at least, is looking more and more like a cheap gimmick peddled by art instructors to make an extra buck. Fascinating series, James; thank you.

Watch Vi Hart explain Fibonacci numbers:
http://vihart.com/blog/doodling-fibonacci-1/

I'll be honest, I never really understood how or why the golden ratio was used to make a composition. Nor did i ever understand how the parthenon in any way breaks up into a spiral, I still don't see it.

This series of posts is making me feel less like a dunce. Thank you.

I think much could be said in the defense of Caravaggio using it at least in the piece "The Card Sharps".

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/The_Cardsharps.jpg/350px-The_Cardsharps.jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardsharps_(Caravaggio)&h=162&w=228&sz=1&tbnid=YBMjy1WkHZQK6M:&tbnh=113&tbnw=160&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcaravaggio%2Bthe%2Bcardsharps%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=caravaggio+the+cardsharps&usg=__Wjc9VA0f_bJwrow7otbnK6XftDg=&docid=-vgR72tmnZQc5M&itg=1&sa=X&ei=Vmj4UOLnJOXZigKMyYDwAw&ved=0CI4BEPwdMAo

This blog series on the Golden Ratio is very well written and presents some very good information, but some of its research is incomplete, which is leading to incorrect conclusions and "facts" as it progresses. To know if Leonardo used the golden ratio in his paintings then survey his more complex paintings, not just illustrations of Vitruvian Man, a rhombicuboctahedron and a single, simple portrait of the Mona Lisa. His other paintings, most notably “The Last Supper,” show some rather clear applications of the golden ratio. Michelango’s “The Creation of Adam” from 1512 has the finger tips of God and Adam touching at the golden ratio point of the width of the painting. It is simply wrong to dismiss artistic application of the golden ratio prior to the late 19th century and consider it to be only a modern invention. As we await tomorrow’s article on whether the golden mean really does appear in the human figure, I hope that James and the readers will do more complete research before coming to their conclusions. Test it using a golden ratio design app such as PhiMatrix and see examples at goldennumber.net/face and related pages on the golden ratio in the human form that site. Thank you for the discussion.

This site may give a hint of why we might have a special liking of the golden ratio:

http://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/nature-golden-ratio-fibonacci.html

As the site points out, in a certain mathematical sense, the golden ratio "slips" between simple fractions. This is a property that other constants like pi or e do not have.

However, I should point out that there is a whole class of numbers with this same property. Namely, any number of the form (a phi + b)/(c phi + d) where a, b, c, d are integers satisfying ad - bc = 1. For example, the number (3 phi + 4)/(5 phi + 7) = 0.587.... If you type this number into the little program in the above site, you will also get a nice "tight-formation" cell pattern.

With this in mind, if one wants to look for the golden ratio in nature or in art, one might think about looking also for all such golden-ratio-like numbers. There are infinitely many of them! That should keep the crackpots busy ;)

james you are the most amazing person ever! your whole blog is pure gold for us self taught artist that wish to get more knowledge into our heads, i dont know how much time it will take me but i wish to learn all of your lessons and look for ways to apply theese concepts in my everyday work, the latter will take a while but in themean time reading its just a pleasure, please never stop sir!

Jim--
Strangely enough, I find the goose picture without overlapping forms more 3 dimensional than the Charles Sprague Pearce piece. Each goose seems to spring out of the picture. I even think the tangencies in the second picture work rather nicely. I suspect the artist was consciously playing with that artistic no-no, with rather interesting effect.

The use of overlapping to create depth/dimension and the trouble that tangents create are perfectly valid, but I think the examples used are not supporting your point, especially the Charles Sprague Pearce piece which while it does use overlapping, it also has a muted narrow palette, shallow dimension, and the most vivid things in the piece are the moving elements whilst the static natural structures around them are blurry and give the impression of movement. If the Pearce piece was in it's execution simply an example of overlapping than it failed to convey that as it's weaker elements distract. The other two pieces use their palette and stylistic stroke to engage the viewer in an image of living things, almost defying the tangential relationships in the composition. I feel as if I can see the wind across the grass or the flitting light of the Sun shining through leaves while in the Pearce piece I am not engaged in the environment or the living elements moving through them and in that respect these pieces become more interesting for their ability to defy the taboos of illustration that they engage in.

Thanks for continuing to write great pieces about art and technique. I really do love reading what you have to say and look forward to your next piece.

-Josh Adams

Claude Monet's 1876 painting of Turkeys is a good example too.

I find quite a few of these geese keep on overlappin';-))
and have to second Josh Adams - especially the geese Pastorale has got quite a few additional elements to create depth imo.:
the warm/cold contrast, for example, with the cool blue waterfront (including the front geese with a cooler tinge than their "earthy" followers walking in that patchwork of light and shadow). The warmer tones are receding into the background. Usually it has to be the other way round, we have a funny reversal here, "an ability to defy the taboos of illustration" perhaps, as Josh Adams says.

The herdsman, with no feet visible, is pretty overlapped too;-)
Then we have the overall perspective: the cool horizontal waterfront broadly spreading in front without limit, so to say. Whereas the warm lighted road representing quite a limited triangle with a fixed base pointing towards the horizon.

Whencesoever: I have a postcard with a motive from Hergé's Tin Tin comic somewhere. It shows in perspective a busy "China Town" road including a plethora of sign boards and all kinds of traffic. I'd call it "my favorite depth inducing overlap"...

Yeah, I agree with the previous comments that the rule was intentionally broken and with good effect.
In the hands of an experienced artist it can be done.

Your point of tangents is still a good lessen and should be noted when learning the fundamentals.
Your point in this post.
You must first learn the fundamentals before they can be successfully broken.

When done by an inexperienced artist it works against a successful image and does flatten.

Instead of seeing the animals as a single mass, as we usually should, I think the tangents create a movement that reflects the character of the geese and goats. That kind of nervous jerky body movement of geese is communicated better by breaking the rule and gives the flock as a whole a frenetic energy.

Same with the goats, every goat I've ever met is kind of nervous.
The eye-leading movement of the two flocks also leads back to the herdsman in each, their overseer, a sign of an experienced artist.

Hopper, in his lonely cityscapes, intentionally broke rules to communicate a greater underlying idea when he wanted to create a subtle unease.

I'm kind of torn. I suspect LaThangue was very much under the spell of Bastien-Lepage, who was unafraid to be quirky with his compositions. The paintings certainly have depth and are successful paintings, but I have to agree with James that a tiny bit more of overlapping might improve them more than a tiny bit; however, that might well destroy much of their essence as "school of Bastien-Lepage" paintings.

Nothing really new here, but I do think LaThangue's geese are intentionally not overlapping. By not grouping them all into one unit, the geese feel more lively and chaotic, not to mention the depth added by the dot matrix of little birds all coming towards the viewer.

He seems to have used the shadows of the trees to keep the back geese from becoming too distracting, also negating a lot of the negative effects of not overlapping.

It's good to see that there's a healthy skepticism of compositional rules. I'm usually the guy with the skeptic hat, too. As with the rules of grammar, there may be reasons to boldly split infinitives or to find certain prepositions that you can end a sentence with. Or even to start sentences with conjunctions. However, beginners often breach the rules without knowing the rules in the first place.

In the case of Pearce vs LaThangue, I was not comparing their lighting or color, though, just their use or neglect of overlapping.

And what makes you think you can start a sentence with a conjunction?

I find the LaThangues much more interesting and involving than the Pearce. The Pearce is a very well-done sentimental painting. LaThangue makes you feel as if you are looking at a real scene. His two examples, especially the geese picture, give me a better feeling of reality.

Found and composed fine in the painting by Pearce is the position of the legs of the sheep. The sheep beside the sheherd boy is an echo and
to double in the movement related position in an open step. Behind the other two sheep: The first on the left
with legs together tightly. Can it be that these four sheep legs considered
as a composition also echoed the similar result to the boy and the sheep at his side in the foreground? :-)!

Klimt was another artist who intentionally broke the rules of overlapping.

But Klimt (when he was breaking these rules) wasn't trying to create depth and realism. He was interested in the tension between the spaciousness and the picture plane.

Apparently his early work was considered acedemic.

The geese in back near the figure cluster quite close together, then gradually spread out as they move down-stage. I think this emphasizes their movement down-stage toward the viewer.

I have to agree with James on this. Even before reading what this post was about alarms were sounding in my brain at first glance of the geese painting. I recognized instantly that the painting could easily have been improved by utilizing more overlap.

The second image I even find difficult to look at because of the unpleasant feeling the tangencies give me from a compositional point of view.

The Charles Sprague Pearce image has a much more fluid and natural arrangement of objects. Of course the other two pictures may give you more pleasure in terms of color, light, values and rendering of subject matter, and while those are all wonderful things, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue that James is addressing in this post.

I have to agree with James on this. the monotony of the geese and the tangetial nature of the goats almost touching are killers for me. As for the feeling of light, the Pearce painting actually utilizes a much more sophisticated pattern of values which relies on the Japanese notion of "Notan" This depends on the arrangement of local values rather than that of light and shadow. The feeling of overcast is absolutely effective and the mood of the day is perfectly captured. I also much prefer this understated and subtle color to that of the other two. The Pearce painting for me demonstrates much more skill in composition, value patterning and color than either of the other two. Just my two cents.

Some examples of Bastien-Lepage and Clausen that I think give context to La Thangue and compositional quirkiness:

Bastien-Lepage 1

Bastien-Lepage 2

Clausen

Thanks, Etc. Those are really great examples of the great B-L and one of his Newlyn followers. Good grist for future posts.

This is going to be very useful to me. It's taking awhile for it to sink in, but I'm getting it.

I think that, for some reason, the concept of the squares overlapping confused me initially. I find it a little easier to think in terms of relative surface area and not think about the overlapping...but maybe that's just me.

Tom, you're right -- he says in the text that one of the tones should predominate, but it doesn't necessarily need to be in the background. In some design classes they have the students cut big shapes out of toned paper to better approximate the basic design.

Also, I think four tones is almost too many -- I find it helps to boil the design down to three or even two main tonal areas.

I got one of the vintage versions a few years ago for Christmas. I found this section particularly helpful.

When doing roughs, I use a 30% gray marker a 70% gray marker, black pen and the white of the paper to force myself into planning the tonal composition. It's been a very useful approach.

Great stuff.

I remember reading about a similar design approach in Jack Hamm's 'First Lessons in Drawing and Painting'. Like the Loomis book, its out of print.

Note to commentators: I've temporarily reinstalled the word verification step because I'm really getting hit with a lot of bot spam. Sorry for the inconvenience.

I have to say that I've always had trouble understanding this concept out as well. "I find it a little easier to think in terms of relative surface area and not think about the overlapping...but maybe that's just me."I agree with you Tom. Maybe instead of square shapes it would be easier to have abstract toned shapes similar to the painting you want to do??? James, perhaps in a future post(s) you could teach us more in this particular concept and its applications? This is something I would like to understand better. And perhaps you could give us your thoughts on a simplified version as well?

Good idea, Rick. For now, have a look at the earlier post about Tom Lovell's three value studies: http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2008/06/three-value-study.html

In school we were taught five tones, but that four or three were better. I tend to agree with James, as the simpler the main statement the more noticeable and profound, all things considered. In the media rich world of today, this could not be more appropriate advice to take in my own humble opinion.

What about images that don't utilize a full range of values? For example, a misty or foggy scene, or some night scenes.

I have wondered for sometime now what your thoughts on Loomis were. I was recently able to acquire Figure Drawing for all it's Worth. I know his books are very highly recommended by another artist I admire.

Ezra, good point. There are many pictures that can't be placed in one of these categories. Loomis's point is to group the tones so that the picture doesn't become too busy.

Keith, I have a huge admiration for Loomis's art instruction books, and I recommend them. I used to read them (and still read them) over and over again, and I admire the way he addresses issues of painting and color, especially.

Pattern, Thanks. I wasn't aware of that Jack Hamm book. I just have the ones on animal and figure drawing.

Artillory, you said it. Simplicity of tone is one of the hardest things to accomplish in composition, but it makes a huge difference.

Great post, James. I'd recently read a great article about tonal organization which touches on this very topic: http://underpaintings.blogspot.com/2010/12/gray-matter.html

The article also has a priceless quote by Howard Pyle, who apparently subscribed to an even more stringent formula: "If you can make a picture with two values only, you have a strong and powerful picture. If you use three values, it is still good, but if you use four or more, throw it away."

And of course, it's "recursive": sub-groups of overlapping tones within this arrangement can follow the same scheme. So for example, a light, black and white values on the dark background could be arranged as "light and black on white", "white and light on black", "white and black on light".

And it takes in account that you can juxtapose similar values or use contrasting values to separate them.

And of course, it's "recursive": sub-groups of overlapping tones within this arrangement can follow the same scheme. So for example, a light, black and white values on the dark background could be arranged as "light and black on white", "white and light on black", "white and black on light".

And it takes in account that you can juxtapose similar values or use contrasting values to separate them.

There seems to be a psychological need TO give the face extra room to inhabit, compared to the back of the head.

Just a small typo in the beginning of the sentence: I marked it with caps lock - TO

Thanks, Neave. Fixed!

By the way I really like the new post. Nose room is definitely an interesting subject which I never really thought of before you mentioned it.
Thank you Mr. Gurney for being awesome as always.

It seems so obvious now! Thanks for the enlightening post.

How interesting. I had never thought about how much space there should be around different items to make us feel comfortable.
I will remember your post when I am next looking at pictures.

"Even the title takes you beyond the frame." I've read that great care and revision went into the titles of Andrew Wyeth's paintings. His wife, Betsy, came up with the majority of the titles.

Thank you very much James. This is a very interesting subject!

When I scrolled down this article and then saw that last painting by Wyeth, I smiled. Yes, he is a rulebreaker isn't he :)

"The King's Speech" made abundant use of this type of unexpected shot composition:
http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_le4hq3GOWJ1qzvdcjo1_r1_500.jpg

I honestly found it a bit distracting; while I understand that it was done with a purpose, I felt that the movie suffered because it, not benefited from it.

Tyler, that's really interesting. Great examples. They violate the head room rule, too.

Perhaps Nose room is in part to give implied room for the personal space in the image, the viewer would feel less comfortable if they were implied to be closer to the subject than they would be in real life. This would explain why the back of the head does not require much room. It would be interesting what a plot of that personal bubble would look like -maybe an egg?, extending away from the face and as close to the back of the neck before you start breathing down it ? very interesting as always :)

Lee, I think you've got something there. I like your idea of charting the bubble of our personal space, like how much room we need around us with strangers on an elevator. Is it easier to stand closer to someone back to back compared to front to front? I suppose eye direction and eye contact is a factor, too. If the face in a picture is making eye contact with the viewer, does that change the nose room rules?

I suppose not just eye contact would affect it, but all sorts of things, like how well you are supposed to know the person or whether you are meant to be interacting with them. nose space, seems to come into play when the figure isn't acknowledging the viewer and is paying attention to something else,so perhaps it shows us that we aren't rudely blocking their line of sight?

Plus, Ghassan Massoud just needs some extra space for that awesome nose of his. KoH is a favorite film of mine, and I particularly love his scenes. I think he'd make a wonderful Captain Nemo...

I hadn't thought about this phenomenon until reading this, but it would explain some past decisions I have apparently made subconsciously... also some unexplained dissatisfactions with a few compositions as well. Thanks for the post, James - thought-provoking as always!

Hi Mr.Gurney. Just wondering what is the difference/relationship, if any, between nose room and the composition rule of thirds? or are they the same?
Thanks!

Alhaitham, they're different rules. All of the pictures in the post follow the rule of thirds, since the heads are roughly on one of the third divisions, but only the first two follow the nose rule. The Wyeth follows the rule of thirds but breaks the nose rule. I like to learn all these rules and then ignore them if it suits the picture.

In the world of film and animation storyboarding, this is an idea that goes back a long way. I hear it referred to as 'looking space'.
The onscreen visual impression is that the empty space is filled, mentally, by whatever it is that the person is looking at. It's an invitation for the viewer to participate.

When this 'rule' is violated, it can give rise to unsettled feelings, and you see it used often in noirish suspense movies and horror films.

This is difficult to do. It seems like doing the small initial thumbnail value studies can help you plan for this. I think it was a Rockwell piece that I first noticed shapewelding and started trying to apply it in my own work.
Letting the viewers imagination do the work seems to help a lot.

Very interesting. There seems to be lots of contradictory advice floating about from masters of art. How do you put it all together into a whole? Howard Pyle, as I remember from something you wrote here, I believe, said to put the greatest chiaroscuro in the most important place in the picture.
Can we assume that an illustrator's goals are not the same as the goals of a painter of works to hang on the wall? Or can somehow both these effects work together? Or, more to the point, maybe some effects work better in some pieces and some in others.
I suppose that as long as I am paying attention to Rules, I am still in the rookie stage of illustrating.

Vicki brings up an interesting point about how to balance "rules" (for want of a better term). I think the best approach might be to work to a point where you are aware of these guidelines (perhaps a better term than rules) but have internalized them enough to apply them subconsciously - at least most of the time. Otherwise I think (and this speaks to my own learning style as much as anything) trying to balance too many guidelines while working can lead to a sort of paralysis - or, just as bad, overthinking and/or overworking the piece.

You shouldn't be too hung up on rules... (after all, there are no rules, only tools) But I think in this case the greatest value contrast is at the focal point. The bright wedding dress of the bride against the dark clothing of the groom behind her. Also the biggest area of white (the dress) and the biggest area of black (the priest et al) are both put next to each other to put more emphasis on that area.

I wonder what other qualities they say are "indicative of a master"?... surely if I learn all of those qualities I will be a master? yes? .... probably not ;)

I'm glad to find your blog.

Torbjorn, you nailed it! You are exactly right. Now that I look at it, I see that the greatest value contrast IS at the focal point. So there is no contradiction. That helps.

breadth=Art . a broad or general effect due to subordination of details or nonessentials.

effet in french translates to effect.

Richard

This is great advice! And this is one of my favorite scenes in all literature.
When it comes to great things that have come from the United States, you can't do much better than Rockwell and Sawyer.

Interesting- I notice in final painting that the rapt attention the boys pay to the paint is the humorous heart of the story. And we're seeing it through Tom Sawyer's eyes, instead of at his eyes as in the sketch.

My art teachers went over this very same point many times, using almost the same example. Howard Pyle and NC Wyeth also had some great lessons about not being overly literal with your illustrations. It really stuck with me. Now I cringe whenever I see illustrations that stuff too much in just for the sake of having it.

In an Andrew Wyeth book he said his dad wanted to bring to life a part of the book that hadn't been fully described.
I can't remember the exact quote unfortunately. But it was to the effect that the author has painted the picture in the imagination already, so the illustrator should pull out just the suggestions of detail. He was referencing "Blind Pew" from treasure island.

Wow, that's brilliant. As a beginning illustrator, I have struggled with making the picture fit the text exactly. I know it ought to say something that the text doesn't say--that it's not just a picture of the words--but this is a beautiful note. And the example that you show makes it perfectly clear. If I had only seen the first drawing, I would have thought it was lovely. But the second one--as Mark said--shows us the scene through Tom's eyes, not showing us Tom.

Rockwell's remark brings to mind two others that broaden the idea and help us see how it applies equally aptly outside the realm of art:

Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
Antoine de Saint-Exupery (1900-1944)

"Music is the space between the notes." Claude Debussy

Rockwell's choice is a great example of the truth represented by the excellent quotes that Dan posts.

Or, to boil it down even further, the famous - Less is more.

It's not without exception, but it's so often THE rule to employ.

...or course it's not just a matter of simply leaving things out, but the question of WHAT to eliminate. Rockwell's decision here was masterful.

Discard "ruthlessly": Sounds so simple. Think I need to print it up and post it, maybe in more than one place and for more than just the art in my life!

Discard "ruthlessly": Sounds so simple. Think I need to print it up and post it, maybe in more than one place and for more than just the art in my life!

I don't have Pyle's own words, but in an item about his Art Students' League lectures, The American Art News for March 25, 1905, said, "He teaches the necessity of elimination - that is, after a composition is once created the eliminations are more important than the additions..."

Mark Heng, i think you described it perfectly and in most ways i think it helps the reader focus mainly on its subject its representing. And also too much can overwealm the viewer...

This post is so good! I like it!

Louis Vuitton handbags - cheap louis vuitton bags 2012 sale.

Louis Vuitton bags, cheap louis vuitton handbags sale, save 50%.

Louis Vuitton outlet, cheap Louis vuitton handbags on sale.

Louis Vuitton outlet - cheap Louis vuitton handbags, lv bags 2012.

Louis Vuitton purses, cheap louis vuitton handbags on sale.

Louis Vuitton wallets, cheap louis vuitton belts online, 50% sale.

Louis Vuitton handbags, cheap Louis Vuitton bags sale, save 50%.

I think it was Willa Cather who said to "Kill your babies." Whoever said it, it's another interesting thought about the creative process because it addresses the bond we form with something we've created, and the emotional difficulty of removing it. I find I have to get overcome a certain resistance to take something out of a picture, especially if I worked hard on it.

enjoyed this post...Rockwell was a genius!

I'm pondering the differences between Illustration and Fine Art. For a narrative piece the advice seems sound. However,before I read your peice I'd seen this image and never known which of the two boys shown was Tom.

You know, Runninghead makes an excellent point about this particular illustration. My earlier reaction to the final version was exactly the same...i.e. not being sure if one of the boys is Tom himself.

That doesn't of course diminish my appreciation of the value of good editing.

Love this story!

Of course the real dilemma is after you've struggled and struggled with taking things out -- the client says -- can you put it back in?
It's all sort like a big puzzle sometimes...

did the tracing paper mater or was it just what was on hand. man i would love to have been there!

A lot of the work, after very initial roughing things out, was done on tracing paper (whatever you had). Really speeds up the re-draw/re-design process.

I think we'll be doing this again. Maybe next time for you, Aaron?!