On 5/24/05, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
That sounds like a bunch of Artsy Fartsy Bullshit to me (apologies if the original utterer of the phrase in question is a list member <g>). Either it's a good shot, or it isn't. Either one likes it, or one doesn't. I happen to like it, broken or not. > I think that the shadows and lights work together so that this image > is actually a whole. Agreed. > Here is the question: is this composition really broken into two > halves? What defines a composition that is whole? There's no defintion, IMHO. > I mean not in a sense of rules or examples, but rather in a sense of > viewer's perspective... I'm not sure what you mean by that last paragraph. But, I like the photo. It's interesting, intriguing, the lighting/shadows is neat, and it's well composed, IMHO. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
