Why composition is satisfying

Composition and motive are things that are not talked about in photography very much. I don’t mean the so-called ‘science’ of composition which, in my opinion, is talked about and dissected way too much. I’ll add my own thoughts on this image and composition below.

Instead, I wanted to apply my four-layer photography principles to this image to see how it works and why I made it.

I think photographs have four potential dimensions, or ‘layers’. First, there’s the literal dimension, or what the photograph is ‘of’. This is as far as many people get, and that’s fine. It’s not a judgement. Second, I think photographs have an emotional dimension. It’s how they make us feel. Third, photographs have a graphical dimension – a visual structure that’s satisfying in itself. You can enjoy the graphical structure of a photograph in the same way you enjoy the weight, feel and textures of a piece of pottery, for example, a painting by Vassily Kandinsky or a Bauhaus poster. Lastly, I think photographs can have a very elusive quality of the ‘unknown’. They can leave you puzzled, questioning or thoughtful. Photographers don’t have to provide answers, as they can also pose questions.

So how do I think this photograph works in terms of these dimensions, or layers?

Firstly, as a ‘literal’ rendering, it’s pretty thin. It’s a reasonably descriptive rendition of this location, a closed off lake, causeway and apartment complex, but all that’s rather undermined by the prominent step ladder in the foreground. It’s just a step ladder. Who takes pictures of a step ladder? This is, of course, one of the more demoralising responses faced by photographers, especially when you’re still finding your own style and interests. You may feel your images have multiple layers, but your audience may not see them. So this is not a literal photograph. Let’s move on.

Does it have an emotional layer? I don’t think it does. Photographs don’t have to create feelings in order to be satisfying. Often it’s enough that they are graphically satisfying, and I think this one is. Now if we were to dissect this using the regular ‘rules’ of composition, it’s a disaster. I have created a framing effect by darkening the sky and the foreground, but what happened to the rule of thirds? It went in the trash which, in my opinion, is often the best place for it. This composition is deliberately centralised and symmetrical. I think this works way better than any attempt to prettify it with the rule of thirds. I do put objects on thirds sometimes, but only if it’s right for the composition. Here it wasn’t.

Is there a sense of the unknown in this photograph? Well, I think perhaps there is. Some folk will laugh and say that what is unknown is why anyone would photograph a set of steps. But actually, what sounds like unwelcome criticism has another side – even to the literal-minded, there is an enigma. They want to know what is the point of an apparently pointless photograph. If you can make one literal-minded person in ten think for a moment, or even one in a hundred, then you’ve done some good.

I do think that composition is more complex than a set of rules. We all have eyes. We can all see how shapes balance and interact, how lines mesh and move your gaze around the picture. For me, composition is about shapes, balance, lines and movement. A photographer’s skill lies in managing and arranging these elements to produce a visually satisfying result. See the tiny figure in the distance on the causeway exactly in the centre between the two handles on the step ladder? That wasn’t an accident. I waited for that. Small details like that might not matter to everyone, but if it matters to you, it’s important.

Composition is a subtle visual skill that makes your photographs different to anyone else’s and it will develop on its own if you let it. Trying to apply ‘rules’ of composition will kill it dead.

As for this sense of the ‘unknown’, well, who says that photography should provide answers? Answers represent the end of thinking, which might be a satisfying conclusion to some, but not to me – and maybe not to you.