Chapter IV
Delving into Visual Balance

What is harmony to beauty?
After reading the definition of visual harmony in the previous chapter, you might think that less harmoniously composed paintings are less likely to enrapture viewers with a higher degree of visual sensitivity. On the contrary, one’s capacity  to be moved by a work of art is  unlimited. The aim of studying harmony in different paintings is not to discredit any of those works; it is to draw attention to what harmony in  art is.

Paintings can be harmonious to varying degrees. Many paintings are perfectly executed on a technical level, yet they are not completely balanced. This is because while equilibrium is retained within certain groups of elements, the groups themselves are not maximally contrasted between one another. Thus, the painting is not harmonious: the eye is not drawn to every element, but only to a few. 

Consider Florinda by Franz Xaver Winterhalter:

A (original)

According to our research, mirroring the whole lower part of the painting (B) does not lead viewers to evaluate the modified version as worse.

The opposite happens in the following pair of paintings:

B (modified)

A (original)
Henri Matisse Lady in Blue

B (modified)

A relatively small change in the top left corner of the painting (B) makes it significantly less attractive to viewers.

Going back to Winterhalter’s painting (A), we can disrupt the contrast between the bright group of women in the foreground and the dark background of the forest, perhaps by lightening up parts of the forest with sun rays (C). In doing so, the painting’s idyllic feel is not destroyed and the technical quality stays the same. Yet we also introduce compositional chaos, which can be escalated by deepening the contrast. This demonstrates the extent to which harmony is gradable and shows how important it is for the painting. 

A (original)

C (modified)

***

Additional remarks
A well-composed painting also requires a compositional axis to provide the viewer with a feeling of appropriate framing. In other words, something needs to take centre stage in the composition. This is done by noticeably (but not overwhelmingly) increasing the contrast of a selected area located roughly in a section indicated by the golden ratio, which I call the “field of increased sensitivity”. The proportions of this area and the intensity of contrast between them depend on another interesting phenomenon: the perceived importance of different areas of the painting. 

We usually recognise elements in the centre of a painting as more important – or are perhaps more sensitive to them – than those closer to the edges. This is likely a result of the sharp, straight edges of the frame appearing distinct from  the adjacent elements, thus weakening the contrast between the elements themselves. To retain equilibrium, the contrast in the centre must be somewhat lower than that at the edges. 

This might seem to contradict my suggestion to  create a compositional axis by increasing contrast in a roughly central section of the painting. However, painters with a good eye for composition can bring both these requirements together, ensuring that the contrast between the elements in the field of increased sensitivity maintains equilibrium with the opposing tendencies on the edges. As for the ratio between these two areas, despite studying it for over 40 years, I still don’t have an answer.

A painting’s format has a profound impact on composition. Achieving harmony is slightly easier in squares than in rectangles. In vertical paintings, the field of increased sensitivity does not fall in the vertical centre but appears asymmetrically, slightly above it. This can be tested by turning the canvas upside down – sometimes, contrasts which seemed balanced in the original orientation become reversed. In other words, when the painting is turned upside down, an element placed below the centre enters into the field of increased sensitivity and becomes stronger. 

Composing works on non-rectangular surfaces is also very interesting. If we cut a semicircular hole in a cardboard surface and slide fragments of various paintings under it, we will notice that pretty much anything looks fine through it. This happens because the vivid shape of the semicircle makes the play of contrasts within the composition fade. With their symmetrical character, circles and ellipses are less “aggressive” than the semicircle – creating compositions within such formats becomes a challenge once again.