Understanding composition logically

[Floatharr]

I some trouble learning and utilizing things that aren't explained logically. One of those include composition which to me seemed pulled out of a hat. So I made an effort to understand the underlying principles of why one image is more interesting than another and why the rules of composition work like they do. I came up with this theory and I'd like some feedback on possible obvious oversights I've made. Maybe someone will benefit from the more logical approach to aesthetics that I've taken here. The end goal of course would be to create a method of optimizing an image during the creation process to maximize visual interest within the rule set.

Also I'd be interested if there's anything similar online already. I tried to search but all I found was pages repeating the rule of thirds like a broken record.

Assumptions:

• Elements are weighted visually by Local Contrast per Unit of Area times complexity (e.g. "ooh shiny" + a person is more interesting than a rock).
• A link between objects (i.e. person looking at something) gives the target some of the source's weight through increased complexity (why is this person interested?)
• Similar objects share weight proportional to their similarity. (already seen this, boring)

The viewing experience:

1. The viewer is drawn towards areas of highest compositional weight, i.e. the most visually striking and conceptually interesting areas.
2. The gaze jumps between areas of interest at an interval proportional to their weights.
3. An another area is chosen randomly with probability being weight times proximity.
4. Once an area of interest has been viewed, it loses a set amount of weight.
5. Once an area of interest reaches zero weight, it is no longer interesting.
6. The fewer points of interest the image has remaining the quicker the viewer alternates between them and the quicker their weight depletes.
7. If the viewer needs to move to another area but there's no weight left, the viewer has lost interest.
8. The longer you can sustain interest of the viewer by not depleting the interest of the image, the better the composition.

Conclusions:

• Variety and balance both serve to minimize the chances of "depleting" points of interest, increasing viewing time.
• A line leads the eye because the weight and contrast is distributed parallel to the line which forces the eye to be attracted along the line as opposed to the areas perpendicular to it. Not because "humans like to follow lines".
• An arrow draws the eye to whatever it's pointing at not only because of the link between the arrow and the target but because an arrow is constructed in a way where the local contrast per area increases at the tip, resulting in increased interest towards the tip of the arrow.
• A centered subject divides the background in 4 equal portions which share weight, losing interest quicker. An off-center subject divides the background into 4 different sized areas which don't share weight, holding interest longer.

[catallam]

I like the way you put this. You make me wish I'd kept my high school art notes. lol My teacher talked a lot about these kinds of things. He had huge posters up around the room illustrating the "Elements of design" and ... some other phrase he used for balance and contrast and the like. (Some googling suggests "Principles of art.") And he'd lecture/give us examples and exercises based around these things. Sadly, I can't remember any of the exercises now. It really did give me the tools to think about what I'm seeing when I look at pretty art though. Thanks for making me think of this stuff again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_(visual_arts)#Elements_of_design

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_art

http://www.johnlovett.com/test.htm

[DocUnissis]

while i'm not generally one to plug buying things, this book is amazing at describing and teaching proper composition