Here's my thinking. There is an unresolved struggle for dominance going on between the compositional elements - the forms as well as the tones - which never resolve themselves. This produces an additional conflict with the subject matter, which is not itself stressful.
The higher lamp is breaking the vertical axis of the picture, and that is slightly disturbing. The lower lamp is too low, and in the weakest area of the rectangle, compositionally. The strongest part of the rectangle, the lower left, contains something that adds nothing at all to the photograph. The pools of light are in conflict with the main diagonal of the picture. Despite the strong diagonal formed by the 2 lamps, they seem isolated from each other, and unrelated. That may be because each one is in a different position within its own quadrant of the rectangle, and that adds to the sense of stress. There's too much non-contributory clutter in the lower part of the photo, and no real horizontal base. All in all, it is discordant and tense. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, but I don't think it suits the subject matter. Your idea of Sheherezade doesn't come across to me (and I'm a big fan of R F Burton), although I do like the upper lamp and the octagonal table. I'm a sucker for that style of furniture. I don't know what your friend means by 'a composition that is whole'. Perhaps he means one where all the elements are in harmony or in balance. That's quite a big question. Too big to answer in a single email. I hope that's some help. -- Cheers, Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 24 May 2005 10:08 > To: [email protected] > Subject: PAW and a Question > > Hi! > > http://www.photoforum.ru/rate/photo.php?photo_id=190899 > > I've been told that this photo has broken composition. It is > as if there are two separates shots inside one - one with > lower lamp and the other one with the lamp above. > > I think that the shadows and lights work together so that > this image is actually a whole. > > Here is the question: is this composition really broken into > two halves? What defines a composition that is whole? > > I mean not in a sense of rules or examples, but rather in a > sense of viewer's perspective... > > Thanks. > > -- > Boris > > > >
