Carol,

At least you've figured out whats important. It's a difficult subject to tackle, because just when you think you've got a handle on a set rules someone comes along and breaks them with a resounding success. Maybe we could get something started here and between the bunch of us learn something new. I started this not to tell what I know (which was built on a solid foundation of ignorance) but to shake loose what others may teach me. It's a difficult and important subject.

Claudemir,

Thanks for those examples. It seems to me that when you bring many other elements (shapes) into the scene it then looses the element of being a two person composition. Each person being just one more shape within the overall composition. It's when things tighten up that it gets more challenging.

Allan,

I had the same feeling about our left side of the painting needing to be wider, but then I look at the position of the heads and bodies in relation to the canvas and I begin to wonder. I thought that the bowl was the weakest part of the composition, then I thought that maybe he thought he had to include it to complete the narrative of the bubbles. I just don't know. I never had any negative feelings regarding the boys dark shirt.

Those are some interesting brush strokes in that self portrait.

Steven,

I never considered the inappropriateness of it. Who knows what was on this guys mind a hundred years ago. I can see where it would probably push some buttons in some circles.

Carlos,

Thank you for those excellent points. How much of the success of your painting example do you contribute to the negative space?

Molly,

Thanks for that info. I have a photo of my father at about one or two in a dress. He is holding an apple with a big bite out of it.

Here's another of that same Laszlo son Paul Leonardo. It's possible he didn't end up on the rugby team.

This seems to be the key. Good idea, and something I will try to think about next time I have a double portrait to compose.

Mike,
The austerity of the background in the Murillo piece (more like "vacuum") serves to rivet the attention on the two women; the whole composition would have been weaker (I think) if the artist had included secondary elements in the background. Which does not mean in any way that background or negative space is the third element--I am of the opinion that an element in a painting has to be a "positive", actual element.
Degas introduced a third element in his painting below, the table in the foreground, but the painting remains a 2-figure composition. His background is also austere and we are focused on the 2 women. It is quite easy to include a 3rd element (not 3rd "figure") to make the painting coalesce, the challenge is when we limit ourselves to the austerity of 2 figures and still pull off something powerful.


Not sure if I got my point across...

Could have sworn I attached the image in my previous post. Here it is again, I hope.

"The Rules"
 

Hey Mike, I'm still LEARNING "The Rules" Gotta know them before you can break them ....successfully.

Carlos,

I'm not sure I understand your meaning completely. Maybe it's just a matter of semantics. If we are studying the relationship of shapes and masses isn't one shape just as good as another? Are you distinguishing the term element from shape or mass? If you believe, as you stated, that your first example would be much weaker without the vacuum/shape to the right, then can't we accept it as a compositional element?

I agree that when the "elements" are reduced to the absolute minimum this is when we are put to the test.

Similar to your example Carlos, a more contemporary painting by Carol Katchen.

Carol,

I think this is very true of any field. I suppose that if you stay within the genre of representational art, whatever that means to you, that there are some rules that could be applied consistently.

Our friend Chris Saper is always rightly pointing out those nasty tangents that appear within our compositions, likewise there are certain conventions which apply to the edge of the canvas.

There is, however, a whole world of atypical representations out there. If I were to be generous I would say that those operating successfully in those genres would have first had a handle on some set of conventional rules.

And speaking of two bunny compositions, Easter will be here before you know it.

Carlos,

P.S. I just got a post card from my daughter from the coast of Spain. Hotel Aigua Blava, Platja de Fomells, Bergur-Girona-Spain. However that gets sorted out.

Oh these daughters, I'm reminded that you too have a daughter ...

Okay.
My problem is that I never compose with a conscious thought on the negative space my painting will have. I never have a conscious intention or effort to make it have an effect on the whole. For me it is just something that happens as a result, an effect of some sort. So I never consider it to be a compositional element. I suppose if one DOES consider it beforehand (what role the neg. space will play), and takes it so into consideration, then it could be taken as a compositonal elelment. I don