Some principles of composition

It might be nice if we could add to each other's knowledge of composition by posting a few points we know. I am aware of at least four of these. It does not matter if they are called principles or laws or whatever. They are simply ideas that may be used or not.

1. The principle of the disappearing middle. The rule is broken as much as it is followed, (e.g., Mondrian's 'Horizontal Tree, and other trees he did) but the rule goes that something in the exact middle of a work will not be focussed on by the viewer, so the central object should not be placed there. Anyone who knows more about this one would be gratefully read.

2. The rule of thirds. I was also taught this in photography class. The picture frame can be envisioned as divided into three sections by drawing imaginary lines at one third and two-thirds of the way, both horizontally and vertically. This makes 9 imaginary squares in the frame. Objects placed in one of these, except the middle ones, will presumably be pleasing and stable to the eye.

3. There is a principle whose label I have forgotten, maybe 'the golden section' but it states that a major division of the scene, such as a horizon line, building skyline, etc, should be placed a little more than one third of the way into the picture. For example, if the picture is to have a horizon line in the lower part, the artist should measure up one-third the distance from the bottom, then go a little past this. This would then be the ideal location of the horizon line.

4. The 'line of grace and beauty.' This is a type of s-shaped curve that is supposed to be intrinsically beautiful and can be applied for that effect. The lower curve of the 's' hooks up long and slow, then swoops up to a smaller hook at the top. This line can be seen in nature in the human backbone, if you start at the lumbar region below then follow the outline of the back (seen from the side) up to neck, where the curve turns in. I think this can be seen in fashion illustrations a lot, such as the curve a feather in a hat.

Any other principles of composition are welcomed.

I've detested principals since the day I was asked to bend over and recieve swats back in the days before it became politically incorrect to use corporal punishment on un-principled students.

As for art:

My principle is to ignore all principles and go with whatever works best at the moment.

I appreciate the time and consideration put into these concepts, and they sound like they are good, well founded principles. But, for me, as much as I want to say, 'yeah, these ideas are what work,' my brain assembles them more in the like of a physics exam and I get completely lost.

For some, I guess, the idea of composition is built into the eye/brain already, and trying to decipher them into communicative language only causes a nosebleed.

It's like trying to explain color theory to a black & white

This one always seemed to me to be a weak approximation of the golden section. I reckon what all of these are getting at is that if you create a geometrical shape with your composition it will seem beautiful. For example, if you place a tree such that it marks off the edge of a square then the picture seems very beautiful. The Australian artists Albert Namatjirra and Hans Heysen made good use of this. Monet's early pictures were very precise like this too. I remember one with a sailing ship exactly at the edge of a square and with the mast pointing to the opposite corner of the canvas. The reason thirds come into it is that the rectangle marked off needs to be about a third in length (The golden section) to look nice.

In the renaissance they were obsessed with triangles.

I understand this concept, and have used it in my painting, 'Sunday Afternoon':
http://www.drslick.org/

However, there are really no hard and fast rules in art (obviously), and especially with portaits, I will definitely find the exact middle of the canvas, and try to center the subject there.

It really depends on the effect you are looking for.