Frank wrote: > But isn't that the point? It isn't, I suppose, that it's "found in nature", but > that the human mind will impose ~it's~ structures (for lack of a better term) on > what it finds in the world, and judge certain things to be more satisfying than > others.. > > If that's the way some people want to look at and interpret the world, so be it. > > Personally, I think it's poppycock.
Poppycock? But isn't this what photography is all about? Arranging the world so that it pleases our senses? Making images that fail to please is pointless. Everyone who ignories this is doomed to a lifetime of failed photography. How many square images to you see in print? Not many? How come if they are so visually powerful? Mind you, I'm not saying square images won't work. They do sometimes. However, it makes more sense to crop a rectangle to a square than the other way around. Also, the square format was not made for any artistic purposes whatsoever but simply a way to capture as much of the light from the lens as possible. P�l
