How much is of talking about composition is just people wafting their own farts? Because images like picrel just scream the person who made it thinks they are more insightful than they actually are to me.
>>7897270let me guessyou're a stemcel autist that couldn't comprehend anything unless its spelled out clearly like some python code
>>7897270>to meExactly. Keep your whore mouth shut, permabeg. You're not entitled to an opinion.
>>7897270>scream the person who made it thinks they are more insightful than they actually are to meThat's exactly it. There's no one general rule to follow when designing or composing, and anyone who pretends there is is a liar. pic related is another bs rule.
I think the idea of "invisible alignments" is basically right at this point, after being skeptical of it for years. The problem is in how these tutorials and theories explain it and ultimately ghettoize it down to crude, simplistic "rules." You can "overdescribe" something, I think - destroy fluidity and openness of it. Composition should not be prescribed.I used to struggle to arrange things interestingly being the classic 1girl-1void artist, but I looked at art I like so much and so hard, and tried so many things, and eventually something clicked. I started arranging things kind of like Toppi, in these really vertical and horizontally skewed alignments. If you look at a Toppi illustration you'll find all sorts of alignments that just make it feel really intentional and thought-through.That is all it really is - organization. You want things to feel "intended," not random. But a book or tutorial literally can't teach it, you just have to fail at it a lot and look at a ton of art until it clicks.
>>7897346Oh, and I'm just remembering, I even looked at cairns for a while, had a folder on cairns. You can learn a lot about visual hierarchy, balance, and alignments from cairns and intentionally arranged stacks of shit.Look for organization everywhere. Anything that looks interesting to you can be inspiration.
>>7897270>Because images like picrel just scream the person who made it thinks they are more insightful than they actually are to me.Considering those are bog standard compositions you can find anywhere it's less insight and more exampleBut go ahead and keep projecting your insecurities onto randos
>>7897270I think those 'rules' can be useful tools to think about when your image isn't quite reading correctly, but I do think being too reliant on them can hamper more creative and interesting compositions.>>7897343Is very similar to above. Sure those shapes do subtly portray those things, but going so far as to make your entire character a square or triangle is fucking lame. Even in children's cartoons, it feels overused and bland.But if you're having trouble making your 'evil' character feel evil, going through things like colour or shape theory will obviously help - just don't be overly reliant, and don't be so overt with it.
>>7897270This shit is for photographers who don’t get to choose what goes in the frame and where. In illustration we can make anime girls float in white voids and that makes all these coping methods irrelevant. We can even put a closeup of the anime girl’s nipples as the background. I’m sure you’ve seen this, but it’s not in your chart. Because it’s not possible in photography. You can do whatever that pleases your dick.
>>7897270>it's another "tutorial that already exists in older books, but a twitter child redrew it and takes credit"
>>7897349Wow that is super pretty... look at the beautiful balance of those rocks... a zen master must have made that arrangement...*zooms in*Wait... I can see the glue. THOSE ROCKS AREN'T EVEN BALANCED THEY'RE GLUED TOGETHERTHEY LITERALLY JUST USED GLUE. FOR FUCKS SAKE
>>7897346>The problem is in how these tutorials and theories explain it and ultimately ghettoize it down to crude, simplistic "rules." Yeah, this. Not like it's a bad thing necessarily to try to give some rules of thumb for begs to have something to work off of, but I feel the reason "no rules just tools" gets repeated over and over is that people tend to get stuck in these rules rather than use them as a general guide. When discussing difficult to explain subjects such as these art pros' approach is to show various examples of good composition, shape design etc., maybe breaking them down a little with a few lines. The objective is to get you to really observe the art you like and learn from it, and like you said, eventually something will just 'click'.
>>7897439No rulesOnly tools
>golden spiralI swear every single fucking example I've seen is just complete bullshit. Maybe it works but all these retards just overlay the spiral later and convince themselves they were geniuses all along despite half the squares being off.
>>7897815its a ratio actually, just math. the spiral only makes sense some of the times depending on the composition and these kinda overlays seem more memetic than serious. they do tick me off slightly as well though
>>7897815Imagine getting a titjob from his hairy oily chest.
>>7897270Because this is an idiot explaining composition. Composition means nothing if you can't even balance it in the first place. That's what Mondrian was trying to tell everyone with his autistic rectangles.
