Hi, Wednesday, January 1, 2003, 9:20:19 PM, you wrote:
>>> Fine. You think there are rules of composition? Okay, tell me what they are. >>> List them. I'd like to know what they are. >> >> Disingenuous indeed. You might just as well ask somebody to list the >> laws of science in an email. > But dear Heavens, Bob, do you mean to say these rules are so esoteric and > sophisticated that they can't be enunciated and listed?? Then how in the > world does the beginning photographer remember them in order to APPLY them > when he or she is out photographing?!? They can only be written in hieroglyphics, and can only be pronounced by high priests of the Akhnaten cult. What I meant by the reply is that nobody is going to go to the effort of writing it all out in an email. In addition, the issue of whether a knowledge of composition is useful or not doesn't depend on any given individual's ability to write them down. Requests like yours are often a rhetorical tactic used by the unscrupulous (not including you, of course, Mike!). When the person challenged doesn't accept the challenge, the challenger goes "Aha! so you were talking rubbish all along! I win!", whereas in fact the challenge is a red herring using its little fins to clutch at straws (which have probably fallen out of the famously knocked-about straw man). > Thank you for your list of books, however. I will arm myself with it for my > next weekly library visit. My pleasure. I've found them very useful, although at least one of them could benefit from following a few rules of literal literacy. [...] > I think someday I should do a little chapbook of photography which pair each > of the many "rules" I've read over the years with great photographs which > egregiously violate that rule. <g> That would be very interesting. How is your current book coming along? I'm exhausted with this thread and propose to bow out now, but it's been very interesting and enjoyable, more so for having remained civilised. Thanks. Bob
