The rule of thurds

The little rules written by others are of no use to our photography

Don't confuse technical knowledge with rules created by others.

Don't mistake this speech of mine for a desire to tear everything down.

But rules made by others do not work in photography as an expression of life. If we accept, as Efrem Raimondi said, that photography is the language of the author then we understand how enclosing photography in a series of composition rules is a completely stupid operation.

And keep in mind that many of those rules taken from many old and academic books have been handed down from art schools, often borrowed from painting which would be another form of expression. And from there they are then poured onto the internet, often in those decalogues that pretend to tell us how to do, simplifying with basic knowledge, something as complex as photography, which lives on life in movement.

Add to this that it is almost automatic in many people to want to pigeonhole everything into lists and rules, all with the aim of simplifying. For example, photography workshops and courses are, in most cases, and they are precisely what I call bad photography courses, deliberately codified and imposing a series of visual rules because that way it is easier to "teach".

I talk about my world, made of photography with people, from street photography to portraiture, in short, wherever there is life. But do you really think that adopting the rule of thirds or even the Fibonacci spiral belongs to the gaze on reality? There are photos of politicians fighting in the Chamber of Deputies that they would like to explain to us with Fibonacci: they are all mental masturbations, created after the fact.

And that's exactly the point: by operating with the filter of a rule written by others you get little. Even the form, the compositional aspect to simplify, is linked to the experience captured at the moment. In fact, the photos of those who are considered masters are practically never linked to the courtly rules imposed by someone.

To take a photograph you have to live. There will be no rules and codes a priori, but rather each situation requires a reading of the photographer and creating at that moment the best for a given photograph. This essentially depends on the type of human being you are, the degree of sensitivity and connection, palpable, real, with the world around you.

Reducing everything to an academic and technical discourse is the antechamber for creative collapse. And photos connected only to technicality will always be soulless.

I include these photos to say that this work was a difficult process.

I am not interested in photography made with a stencil. Many continue to repeat things and formulas of all the others.

But how much of the author comes out? Little, often nothing. And it is terrible.

Photography as a language needs to be personal, the result of something that flows from within. The story of these two photographs and the genesis that produced them…

The massification that is celebrated is not positive at all. I expose myself by doing something as an author, making decisions that are not easy, indeed quite complicated.

Don't expect school, the academy, the didactic. There is life and even suffering, if I may say so.

I remember the joy of these two photos after three hours of work. It was not easy, at the beginning. I recorded much more than two frames.

This is photography for me.

And photography is not about following rules imposed, written by others. A photographer as an author should know more of literature, music, cinema than any specific of cameras. How many authors we can find today? A constant imitation of others: Elliott Erwitt took the photo of the dog and everyone with the dog superimposed on the owner, but it is Erwitt's photo, not yours. We even saw award-winning clone photos of Steve McCurry's famous photo.

Photography exists for me only when it has something different to say. And when it communicates something of the author, his point of view. That's why I believe more in photographers who show through their website and not on social media.

Now, I am perfectly aware this speech is not for anyone. Maybe I will be criticized, but we can discuss it.