Composition in a Work of Visual Art

In my previous article I suggested that criticizing a work of visual art is possible for anyone who is willing to look at the reality around him. There are five elements in the universe created by God that mustbe understood by both the artist wishing to make a successful work of art and the viewer wishing to criticize it. These five contain subsets of many other things to consider when analyzing a work, but theyremain subsets of these five. These five characteristics are: the Idea of the work, its Composition, the Technical Mastery involved, the Process of creation, and the Conclusion that the artist is offering.  Although the idea always precedes any action, I am beginning with the composition because, in reality, it is the first thing the viewer sees. But before I begin to delve into the composition, I am going tomake a bold assertion. The Composition and the Idea are fundamental characteristics, the cornerstones in any work. This means that if the work fails in either category there is no need to proceed with anycriticism. So if one begins with the composition and finds it lacking, there is no need to bother with the idea, and vice versa. The work is simply not good enough to be placed in God’s house. A priest must understand that if he does so he commits an action equal to lying in his homily. Let’s begin.

The Composition

The reason that the composition is of such vital importance is because it is the invitation of the artist, the welcoming promise of good things to come. Right away we can see that this is an affirmation of theentire message of Jesus Christ. Immediately on seeing good composition, the viewer experiences an open-ness and a willingness to experience the idea of the piece, which may in turn cause him to meditate further on it. It is an immediate and holistic experience. And because seeing good composition is a pleasure in itself, the viewer will always look forward to seeing the work again. So it is possible that good composition could lead the viewer to prayer, and do it again and again. Surely we can see the importance of this in a setting in which the viewer actually will see the work again and again. Unlike atrip to an art museum, the Catholic is required to enter this place at least weekly. The viewer may not even realize why his desire to go to church increases and becomes more and more something he looks forward to. When we look at the reality of the composition in the world around us we see two things so obvious we may not notice them. The first thing we see is diversity. One is reluctant to use that word in our contemporary life because it has come to have an almost sinister interpretation. Nevertheless, diversity is what we see. We notice the vast difference in animals, from their appearance, to their habitats, to their behavior. We see the difference in plant life in the same way. We see the difference between animals and plants; we could go on and on. But it is not just a general diversity we see. In each group, we see smaller and smaller differences. So if we look at animals, we can see four legged animals, two legged animals, animals that crawl. We can further divide four legged animals into smaller and smaller groups. It almost seems there is an endless dividing and subdividing within any general category we see. We can also note the quality of the differences. Notice that as we look closer and closer at smaller and smaller limits of a category, the creatures or objects do not move toward sameness, they each develop more and more perfectly and uniquely. But somehow we notice that it all fits together. When we experience this journey from the general to the specific and see it fitting together - this composition - it is a pleasure, it somehow seems ‘right’ that this is so. Indeed, this is why ‘word hijackers’ were able to subvert the word ‘diversity.’ They had to take something real and change it.

So how do we express this in a work of visual art?

From the perspective of the artist: the artist must look at reality. Let’s remember that reality is not a synonym for truth. Reality is something outside of ourselves. It serves as a portal to the truth. Indeed, we can only arrive at truth by looking outside of ourselves. Remember, we arrive at truth, we may discover it, reality may conform to it; we can never invent it. If the artist begins to notice what I have described above (and how can he not?), he understands that he must model his working method on it. Why? Because remember, his goal should be to express the truth. He must look at his work as though he is creating his own universe and try as best he can to copy God. Let’s say he decides to paint a figure next to a tree, for example. How might he follow God’s example? First, he must establish his limits. The limits of his particular universe are the dimensions of his frame (its size and shape). That is the ultimate physical limit. Then he must consider his elements. He must carefully consider how the figure and the tree relate to each other. If he has three basic elements - the figure, the tree and the background - he must consider all three. In terms of his work, the background, the ‘empty space’ becomes as important as the figure and deserves as much consideration. He may leave nothing out. God does not. This does not mean that he should give equal importance to every part; he must give equal consideration. Next, he must realize how the specific elements differ: that the hair on the figure is different from the leaves of the tree, and how each differs from the drapery, and, in turn, from the ground. He must work on being able to paint them differently, trying always to express the essence of each thing, while making sure that it all fits into the whole. He must work on smaller and smaller parts of the piece, realizing the essential differences of each element, that the skin around the eyes is different from the skin of the foot, for example, and keep going smaller and smaller, (getting more and more specific) as far as his skill will allow - because this is what God did. Very often we see a work in which the hair is treated in exactly the same way as the drapery and we only know which is which because of where it is and perhaps the color. This would be a work telling a lie.

From the Perspective of the Viewer: The viewer must also look at reality. What he sees and experiences there he must also look for in the composition of a work of art. He should experience pleasure looking at the work even before he considers the subject of the piece. He should not have to jump over this phase of experiencing the artwork and immediately be considering what it is about, what it means. If the very first thought, or reaction, to a work is to give attention to the subject matter (the idea) the viewer is being cheated. He is missing out on the experience of a truth of the universe being affirmed, andthe pleasure that this gives him. There should be a time, however brief, when he experiences a sense of recognition in what he sees, even if he has never seen the subject matter before or even if he does not know the story being told. He should then experience the desire to look more closely, and when he does he should not be disappointed. It should take some time to look at a work of art. He should be able to embark on a journey from the general to the specific, which conforms not only to the true character of the universe, but also to the character of the Church Herself. “The Church does not begin, therefore, as a club; rather, she begins catholic. She speaks on her first day in all languages, in the languages of the planet. She was first universal before she brought forth local churches. The universal Church is not a federation of local churches but rather their mother.” 1   Anytime a viewer has to jump over this and immediately consider the subject matter of the work, he is most likely seeing bad composition.

It is relatively easy to train oneself to be sensitive to composition. An easy way is to make a simple line drawing of the work. If the composition is good, even a simple line drawing will satisfy something in us.

Some may insist that they do experience prayer and meditation when looking at a work with bad composition, that they react to the subject matter alone. I do not deny their claims, I simply point out that if this is so, it is due to what they bring to the image, not what the image (the artist) gives to them. It is a subjective, predetermined response, not an objective response. There is no relationship between artist and viewer, and the artist is not held accountable for his work. A dangerous state of affairs and we see where it leads. In these cases, the artist is preaching to the choir, so to speak. A slippery slope on the road to ideology rather than a search for the truth. If this situation is not only tolerated but encouraged, it completely flies in the face of the ecumenical value of sacred art.

 In my next article I will show examples of works, some with bad and some with good composition, and discuss the differences.

1Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Images of Hope: Meditations on Major Feasts, 1997, 2006

Ignatius Press, San Francisco, p. 69