Are Rules for Fools?
Are there rules of composition? How can an art form have rules? Are rules only for fools, or can they offer guidance for “wise men”? The answer hinges, as so many disputes do, on an ambiguity. The notion of a “rule” is used sometimes as a norm instructing us how we are to behave, and sometimes as a way of talking about a generalisation. Understanding this distinction can help us understand how both sides of this debate can be correct, but in different senses of the phrase “rules of composition”.
The Inner Reality
One of the perennial questions that photographers face is whether or to what extent they may manipulate their image or clone elements into or out of their image before it becomes “fake”. This question has become especially pressing now we have entered an era where AI tools give us the power to seamlessly change or remove anything, even entire skies, at the click of a button.
This is, fairly obviously, an ethical question, but in this blog I look at the more metaphysical question that lies behind it, especially as it applies to landscape or nature photography: Given that we have a duty not to avoid “fake” images, what is the reality against which we should judge the image. I argue that it is an inner reality that is the legitimate ground for judgments of fakery or authenticity, not the external reality we naively presuppose.