Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2017 at 10:46:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Japanese garden scenery at Expo’70 Commemorative Park in Osaka, November 2017 - 146.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Japanese garden scenery at Expo’70 Commemorative Park in Osaka, November 2017 - 146.jpg
Comment A bit too many points of attention in my opinion: the cloudy sky, the green trees, the white spot in the center of the composition, the green area at the right, the river and the grey area on the left: these are 5 different zones in one single picture. My eye roams around the pciture searching for one point of interest of the composition that cannot be found: the result is quite a messing composition. I always think a picture like this should contain not more than 3 points of interest where the eye can stop and enjoy the details:-)Paolobon140 (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about composition
Question - When's the last time you looked at a great landscape painting? How many points of interest are in this painting? How about this one? Complexity, well handled, is a great thing, not a bad thing. Moreover, what I feel you are really doing is criticizing the traditional Japanese aesthetic of what a garden should look like, the best to encourage contemplation, meditation and appreciation of nature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Answer In the painting you showed there are the three canonical layers which accompany painting since its origins: foreground with people, lake, trees; middleground with a hill and a castle; background with sky. I judge the picture, not the culture thta originates the garden and i think, in my opinion, the pictire is messy.Paolobon140 (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make clear that I value your ideas and participation. I think it's invigorating and helpful to this project. However, I don't think that merely because a picture has a foreground, middleground and background, that means there are only 3 points of interest in it. So our analyses differ. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you value my considerations about the picture: commenting on a picture is always interesting if the picture is standing enough to share some impressions about it. About foreground, middlegorund and background: photograaphy descends from painting and took much from painting compositional rules; actually the first photographers simply tried to transport compositional rules from painting into photography; and actually photography have few basic rules, but all of them are simply imported from painting: rule of thirds and rule of fg, mg and bg in panoramas are among them. If you notice the best paintings and the best photographs alwyas follow these 2 basic rules and the result is something our human eye immediately recognizes as "pleasant". It is due to our human way of dividing what we see in thirds, its something automatic. Of course, you can also decide to break the rules, but takes some extremely powerful idea:-) My opinion of course... then we even might talk about the influence of Caravaggio's paintings in modern portrait photography, but thata is something different...Paolobon140 (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My father was a painter who spent a lot of time explaining art to me. I never recall him mentioning a "rule of thirds", but he liked to talk about the linear arabesque, triangular shapes in landscapes, perspective (which I never really mastered seeing in detail), and relationships between shapes and forms, among many other things. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, another thought: There are many styles of painting. Traditional Japanese styles don't have the same approach as the post-Romanesque European tradition. I think it also pays not to impose European-style aesthetics on all photographs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sense of aesthetics is a product of the culture and traditions we have been born in, its not something you can easily change when it comes to comment on a photograph which follows some japanese sense of aesthetics. Im italian and im automatically seeing things with an italian sense of aestethics. And remember i commented on your pic by saying that in my opinion its a messy composition. I think "messy" is not influenced by any kind of specific culture. Messy is more or less the same all over the world:-) I find a wonderful sense of aestethics in the Beijing opera, even if i was borm with Verdi's opera. Beautiful things are immediately recognisable everywhere.Paolobon140 (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Japanese, either, but my father loved and collected books of classical Japanese paintings. It's not at all true that there are universal, world-wide standards of beauty or appropriate artistic form, and your nationality isn't a bar to learning something about Japanese aesthetics, if you choose to do some study. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche -- Laitche (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Laitche (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment A bit too many points of attention in my opinion: the cloudy sky, the green trees, the white spot in the center of the composition, the green area at the right, the river and the grey area on the left: these are 5 different zones in one single picture. My eye roams around the pciture searching for one point of interest of the composition that cannot be found: the result is quite a messing composition. I always think a picture like this should contain not more than 3 points of interest where the eye can stop and enjoy the details:-)Paolobon140 (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
