thanks for explaining this! I think it's really cool because it's in plain site but hidden in a way. I saw the argument below and while everyone can have their own opinion about art - I think we should also consider that, even if you don't want to accept that artists use math/geometry in composition as much as they might have - what humans consider as aesthetically pleasing is related to math and geometry. So even if the master artists didn't sit there and measure everything out, they may have gained the "eye" to see those geometrical connections naturally from hard word and it is therefore from their "inner being" because they can't help but paint compositions in a pleasing way - it won't look right to them. This is just one of my own theories. To the people who disagree: please don't be so mean to someone who has taken the time and effort to put together valuable content for free, if you don't believe in it then why not just click away? or not search for it in the first place?
If you really want to teach, you first have to master it yourself. With all respect but i don't think you are yet that far. it's more guessing and improvising what you do. The only way to really know is to learn as an initiate in the mistery schools, as Rubens, Poussin etc..also did.
Let me just make this comment: in our contemporary times, since the mid 1950's, I find that "experts" are over analyzing works of art. Let's be real here. Most classical artists and the old masters did work on their compositions but not like you show it here. Come on, really? So much of this piece was from the inner, personal sense of esthetics Rubens was gifted for, not pure geometrical, pseudo-mathematical gobble-gabble that so many try to decypher ll over RUclips. These artists were highly gifted, with amazing abilities...and understood, after many trials and errors (not endless calculations), the workings of colours, proportions and eye appealing compositions....in other words, you cannot teach the gift of appealing compositions by explaining them to the common people via mathematical explanations....rubbish
Thanks for the comment! Understanding composition is very difficult, and certain techniques, which can never be learned through experience, must be taught. I can see how artists would see the lines of dynamic symmetry and immediately dismiss them without looking deeper. Sad in a way, but I can't make anyone accept the information I've presented, it's up to them. I've always been curious enough to dig deeper before blindly rejecting something that might benefit my art. Fortunately, rejecting the info will have no affect on a world already filled with piles of mediocre art. It just weakens the chances of any masterpieces shining through the mess.
Are you even an artist? Everything explained in this video series makes perfect sense for creating appealing compositions. It isn't all rubbish. Plus, if you did research, you would know that a lot of these artists, Davinci especially, had good understandings of mathematics and geometry involving the golden ratio. So these grids aren't that implausible, and they line up so perfectly with so many of these paintings that it seems unlikely to just be coincidence. I find it extremely arrogant and ridiculous to think that these artists came up with great compositions without any kind of tools to figure it out. They studied the science and anatomy of the human body to draw people so well, they studied lighting to paint it accurately, they studied color theory to know what color harmonies work best, they studied perspective to know how objects sit in 3D space, so why is it hard to believe they used special techniques to create appealing compositions?
dude... Mondrian, the Cuibist, i mean really? don't over think composition? i mean really so rhythm in art isn't real, composition through line isn't real? have you ever analized an image? go to strip panel naked and tell me is all bullshit, the fact that some people just naturally do it doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't study it
Human anatomy, lines, light (values), all these things are to be learned, certainly. But to say that most great images created over the past 700 years have been composed using intricate mathematical and geometrical calculations is cheating those artists of their genius and their natural gifts. In great art, there is a lot of room given to the mystique and wonders of the human instinct, not the ruler and the calculator.
![Master Painting Composition by Rubens - Part III [Art Techniques] (2014)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xh8RL7NMYTo/mqdefault.jpg)
![Master Painting Composition by Rubens - Part III [Art Techniques] (2014)](/img/tr.png)
thanks for explaining this! I think it's really cool because it's in plain site but hidden in a way. I saw the argument below and while everyone can have their own opinion about art - I think we should also consider that, even if you don't want to accept that artists use math/geometry in composition as much as they might have - what humans consider as aesthetically pleasing is related to math and geometry. So even if the master artists didn't sit there and measure everything out, they may have gained the "eye" to see those geometrical connections naturally from hard word and it is therefore from their "inner being" because they can't help but paint compositions in a pleasing way - it won't look right to them. This is just one of my own theories. To the people who disagree: please don't be so mean to someone who has taken the time and effort to put together valuable content for free, if you don't believe in it then why not just click away? or not search for it in the first place?
Kikoe Art thanks for sharing your thoughts and watching. I’m glad you enjoyed the video. Best of luck with your art. Take care!🙏🏼
Man! I found your channel super helpful!keep up the good work please.
Thanks I appreciate that! Take care!
A couple of words for you on mathematical analysis of this painting... triangles (especially equilateral), and trapezoids.
Ok thank you.
If you really want to teach, you first have to master it yourself. With all respect but i don't think you are yet that far. it's more guessing and improvising what you do. The only way to really know is to learn as an initiate in the mistery schools, as Rubens, Poussin etc..also did.
manu de backer thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts!
Let me just make this comment: in our contemporary times, since the mid 1950's, I find that "experts" are over analyzing works of art. Let's be real here. Most classical artists and the old masters did work on their compositions but not like you show it here. Come on, really? So much of this piece was from the inner, personal sense of esthetics Rubens was gifted for, not pure geometrical, pseudo-mathematical gobble-gabble that so many try to decypher ll over RUclips. These artists were highly gifted, with amazing abilities...and understood, after many trials and errors (not endless calculations), the workings of colours, proportions and eye appealing compositions....in other words, you cannot teach the gift of appealing compositions by explaining them to the common people via mathematical explanations....rubbish
Thanks for the comment! Understanding composition is very difficult, and certain techniques, which can never be learned through experience, must be taught. I can see how artists would see the lines of dynamic symmetry and immediately dismiss them without looking deeper. Sad in a way, but I can't make anyone accept the information I've presented, it's up to them. I've always been curious enough to dig deeper before blindly rejecting something that might benefit my art. Fortunately, rejecting the info will have no affect on a world already filled with piles of mediocre art. It just weakens the chances of any masterpieces shining through the mess.
Are you even an artist? Everything explained in this video series makes perfect sense for creating appealing compositions. It isn't all rubbish.
Plus, if you did research, you would know that a lot of these artists, Davinci especially, had good understandings of mathematics and geometry involving the golden ratio. So these grids aren't that implausible, and they line up so perfectly with so many of these paintings that it seems unlikely to just be coincidence. I find it extremely arrogant and ridiculous to think that these artists came up with great compositions without any kind of tools to figure it out. They studied the science and anatomy of the human body to draw people so well, they studied lighting to paint it accurately, they studied color theory to know what color harmonies work best, they studied perspective to know how objects sit in 3D space, so why is it hard to believe they used special techniques to create appealing compositions?
dude... Mondrian, the Cuibist, i mean really? don't over think composition? i mean really so rhythm in art isn't real, composition through line isn't real? have you ever analized an image? go to strip panel naked and tell me is all bullshit, the fact that some people just naturally do it doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't study it
Human anatomy, lines, light (values), all these things are to be learned, certainly. But to say that most great images created over the past 700 years have been composed using intricate mathematical and geometrical calculations is cheating those artists of their genius and their natural gifts. In great art, there is a lot of room given to the mystique and wonders of the human instinct, not the ruler and the calculator.
yeah, and also people who study the shit out of ther craft