I.
The the thing is easier, the it is more mysterious. But to behold this mysteriousness it is given not to everyone. It is pleasant to people to deal with evidence, and many try to avoid as непонятностей, and speculations. Цицерон has truly noticed: «evidence is belittled by proofs». It is belittled and any analysis.
But here the trap is hidden also. Having refused own thoughts in favor of evidence, the person risks to be tangled in networks of contradictions.
Not so clearly, about what there is a speech? Now all will be explained.
One of these days the textbook of methodics of the Orenburg state university «composition Laws was fell into in hands to the author of these lines. Composite center» [1]. The textbook of methodics quite good as a whole. But there is in it one закавыка. Of this year Shlejuk, the author of the publication, names in the beginning composite center «the main carrier of idea, the spokesman of an artistic image». And hardly further writes that the composite pause, that is the empty space in group of the elements forming a composition (fig. 1 see) can be composite center.
Fig. 1. Olga Alfimovoj’s illustrating thought on those the operation,That the composite center can be in the empty space [1].
Whether means it, what the carrier of idea of this operation is emptiness? Certainly, no. (Though, I admit that such idea is necessary to many admirers of novels of V.Pelevin to liking.)
Or here one more example. From Lydia Pavlovny Dyko’s known book «Conversations about photoskill» [2]. There in the fourth chapter it is said that «as a basis of a composite picture clearly generated semantic center of a pattern» serves, and hardly the stipulation is more low resulted: «But along with the pictures having at the heart of creation accented composite center, in photo practice meet also such where the accurate accent on one of elements of a composition like and isn’t present, at the same time the picture is finished on a picture». But time so there is a natural question: whether so it is necessary composite (or semantic) center or it is possible to manage and without it? And if it is possible, in what cases?, Alas, the author doesn’t give answers. Besides, in [3] author of these lines already said that the graphic accent can be made on the detail which have been not connected to principal semantic center …
Now, attention! A question: what practical outputs the beginning author can derive from such dial-up of ambiguities? Most likely, everyone will give the interpretation to a stated material and will draw the outputs. It is quite good for polemic operation, and here for educational is a lack. The reason, obviously, consists that the author doesn’t result determinations to terms «composite center», «semantic center», “accent”, «the finished picture», etc. From here and confusion in heads of readers.
The described problem is peculiar not only to these two publications. Very many authors argue on composite and semantic centers, without explaining that they themselves represent. This concept seems so obvious and intuitively clear that any determinations are represented excessive.
Let’s try to break this tradition.
II.
So how many at the image of centers? To tell the truth, as much as necessary. All depends on meticulousness of the researcher. Such answer though is true as a matter of fact, but from the methodical point of view of the big favor doesn’t carry.
More pragmatic approach demands to name at least three main centers, peculiar to almost any art image:
1. Geometrical center — crosspoint of diagonals of the square-topped image.
It isn’t too interesting to us. We will mention only well-known fact: if object “center of gravity” coincides with geometrical center of the image the composition as a whole is perceived as stable, static, invariable.
2. The composite center — the center, allowing to control attention of the spectator.
In composite center not is mandatory there should be something principal and significant. The composite center, generally speaking, isn’t intended for disclosure or accentuation of the main idea of the image (though can be used for this purpose). The Main tasks at it — others. At first, it promotes composition formation as single whole (doesn’t allow to a picture to collapse on components). Secondly, it retains attention of the looking. The spectator can long consider a pattern, thus in composite center its attention will be repeatedly returned. It is the original magnet permanently attracting a look. Making visual traveling on a picture plane, the spectator often begins routes with composite center and in it and is returned.
The composite center is available even for the abstract patterns and the formal images, for example, at a pattern on wall-paper.
The composite center is formed by not so much object or its semantic parts, how many the formal image elements: points, dashes, stains, color, invoices, pointers, lines, etc.
The composite center is not always a point. It can be presented some stretched area. For example, on portraits en face in overwhelming majority of cases eyes will be such center. And it is senseless to specify: right, left or a point in between?
Sometimes the image can contain some composite centers. For example, them can be two: principal and minor. For portraits the fullface one more composite center (besides eyes) can be a front sight on the person [3].
If in the image the composite center misses, the spectator has nothing to stop a sight. At the best it it is indifferent will stop review and at once will forget the image. In the worst — will sicken and for a long time will like the negative emotions. Therefore the beginning author should realize solid: the composite center should be always.
3. The subject (semantic) center is the center containing a principal or important subject element (or group of elements).
Answers to questions are often connected to subject center: about what the given product? What did the author want to tell? What is the most significant in the image? Who the protagonist of a plot?
The subject center can coincide with composite, and can and to be separated spatially from it. Alexander Lapin states [6] that «In case of coincidence of eyes comes to understanding of an essence represented at once, he isn’t tired with the minor details which can be considered and then. Such composition is most economic and clear». It is difficult to agree With it. Functions at subject and composite centers different, and, hence, their diversity in space isn’t so mandatory leads to necessity to consider the minor details. In more details this question will be considered more low at the analysis of examples. Unambiguously understood essence (clearness) is generally more soon a good wish and-or illusion. To calculate for identical understanding of an essence all — it is naive. Moreover, the greatest works of art are those just because they aren’t so unambiguous, as arithmetics textbook.
When subject and composite centers coincide, it is accepted to speak about uniform sjuzhetno-composite center.
On the area the subject center can exceed the composite considerably. Can be and so that the area of subject center will occupy an essential part of all image (for example, in some group portraits).
Subject centers as well as composite, can be a little. However to abuse this rule doesn’t follow. In overwhelming majority of cases it is more reasonable to adhere to the recommendation: one image — one plot. Other possible alternative: to make one subject center the main thing, and the second — minor, subordinated.
In abstract (and some other) compositions the subject center can miss at all. Refusing explicit subject center (but not from the composite!), the author gives the chance to the spectator most to be defined with a plot. To Someone it can it will be pleasant. And someone will shrug shoulders and will tell: «I will not understand, about what it? What did the author want to tell?» Sometimes in such cases the composite center automatically starts to play a role of the subject. Therefore to the beginning author it is necessary to think over properly in absence of an explicit plot the formal composite elements, including center (centers).
George Kolosov recommends «… to give to semantic center luminous accent that, by the way, is the first composite principle светописи» [4]. In a photo such accent can be made also at the expense of control of depth of sharply represented space.
One of basic rules of the photographer, the painter, the designer and etc. could be formulated so: it is not necessary to neglect the realized formation composite and, if needed, and subject centers. Both that, and another are very important elements influencing perception.
III.
Enough boring theory. We will pass to the analysis of examples.
At arguing of composite centers most often consider following picturesque cloths: «Resetting of the prodigal son» Rembrandt ван Rhine, «the Sikstinsky Madonna» Raphael Santi, «Ivan the Terrible kills the son» Ilya Repin, etc. At desire the reader without special difficulties can find these which have already become classical, examples of the analysis in the literature.
Here it would be desirable will stop on other examples, namely: on cases when centers happens a little.
As the first example we will consider the genre scene represented by the artist Caravaggio on a pattern “Fortuneteller” (fig. 2). This cloth is interesting in many respects. For example, thanks to it we can judge how the European gipsies in the end of XVI century looked. By the way, there is a conjugate pattern with the same title, but it is stored not in Paris, and in Rome. If you are interested in painting, the author safely recommends to you to get acquainted with these operations more close … Here let’s pass to the analysis of composite centers.
Compositely figures of the gipsy and its young client are equivalent. It allows to draw an output about presence here two absolutely equivalent composite centers: eyes of the girl and an eye of the young man. Sights of characters are directed against each other, and at the expense of it the attention of the spectator doesn’t abandon a pattern. On the contrary, in focus alternately there is that girl’s face, the person of the young man.
And where there is a subject center of this pattern? It is allocated in the lower part of the image. These are hands of the gipsy and the right hand of its client. I will remind: the semantic center is connected to a plot. And a plot of the given pattern is the guessing expressed through a texture of hands.
The triangle generated two composite and one semantic center creates the finished integral composition.
Whether allows to judge unambiguously set of the revealed centers, what this pattern? Alas, no. A row of researchers state that the theft moment here is embodied. The gipsy a look distracts attention of the young man, and in the meantime pulls down from its finger перстенёк. About it tells the characteristic gesture of its right hand. Other researchers don’t see here any crime and state that it is simply genre sketch constructed on contrast “poor man-rich man”. Presence of different treatments at all doesn’t belittle significance of this operation. On the contrary, it testifies more soon to talent and skill of its author.
Whether you can offer the understanding of a plot? More safely! Perhaps, your variant will appear the most interesting.
Now, «without abandoning Louvre», we will pass to other pattern interesting from the point of view of composite centers.
Fig. 3. Гюбер (Юбер) Rober. The bridge. (Hubert Robert. Pont du Gard.) Louvre.
On a pattern of Robera (fig. 3) is shown the majestic Garsky bridge (Pon-dju-Gar) representing a fragment of an aqueduct constructed by ancient Romans. This architectural creation has reached up to now. And, if you can visit Provence, to Pon-dju-Gar you can safely include visit in your cultural program.
Semantic (subject) center here, of course, is the bridge. After all it is principal “character” of a canvas. Pay attention: semantic center here — not a point, and stretched enough band of an aqueduct.
And where composite centers? What retains here our attention?
Try mentally (or if there is a desire, by means of Photoshop) to delete from a cloth a boat and all figures of people. The image becomes at once boring. The sight will slip on a canvas and, without having found a uniform islet of heterogeneity, will aspire to escape for limits of a picture plane.
That it didn’t happen, the artist has entered into the image of group of people the lobby from which incurs function of composite center. Figures of people and the animals, entered into a composition for formation of visual centers of perception, name стаффаж (it. Staffage). For a plot and sense these figures are minor, but for the finished integral composite creation their importance is very great.
The inference
So, composite centers should be present anyhow on any art image. The neglect or an intended failure from observance of this rule invariably leads to appearance of operations boring and inexpressive.
According to the author of these lines, the composition organic law also consists in it.