Verticality in Artworks - 2nd Post

I'm going to write about this subject in several posts, to keep them small and easy to absorb.

When I say "verticality" I'm referring not just to the outside shape of the canvas of paper or whatever the picture is on, but also to dominant lines and directions within the picture.
Recently I've written some posts about horizontality in art in which you can read about (and see demonstrated) many different effects you can achieve through the use of horizontality. As you can imagine, to achieve opposite effects you might be able to use verticality instead (though it's not always quite that simple).

For example, if your goal is to emphasize a relationship between equals you might want to use a horizontal format, with whatever you want to portray as "equal" on the same horizontal level, but if you want to show who's (or what's) in charge, you might want to use a vertical format, with the one who clearly has the advantage in the situation above the one who is at a disadvantage, for example in the following picture.



Single Combat of Prince Mstislav Udadloi with Rededia - 1812
Andrei Ivanov, Russian painter - 1775-1848
Source: CGFA

In the above picture it's easy to see who is in control. (The angel above is "floating" and obviously not affected by gravity which is what (perceptually) determines who has the advantage; what is important is the relationship to the ground of whatever appears that it would be affected by gravity.) Of the two men in the fight (it was actually considered a "duel") we can probably safely assume that the eventual "winner" (Prince Mstislav) is the man in a vertical position (slightly inclined toward the other man in the competition in a threatening way) and who also is "above" the obvious loser who is apparently about to become permanently horizontal. The verticality of the outer shape of the picture helps to emphasize the dominating-dominated relationship shown by the vertical hierarchy within it.



The Card Players - 1890-92
Paul Cezanne, French painter
Source: The Athenaeum

In the above picture none of the card players is seen as having an advantage. They are all at the same level horizontally. Although the man in the blue smock against the wall is "above" the card players he is smaller and obviously at a distance behind them, has his arms folded as if holding himself back, and seems busy smoking his pipe, so he obviously is neither in charge of nor threatening to the card players. Often a servant or a bystander is shown standing behind a main character in a picture but they are not seen as in the space "above" that main character ... they are obviously at a distance and are played down in other ways also ... such as with subdued colors, lack of contrast with the background, etc.

There are other posts on this blog that have to do with horizontality and verticality. Look at the right side of the page for keywords to get to a page with all the posts that have been tagged by me with one or both of these keywords. There are also other posts that you might be interested in that may not be on that page -- Most anything to do with the Cartesian grid, for instance. There is a search box for this blog on the right side of the page, also, though I admit it's hard to find because the list of keywords is so long.
_____

"When adversaries meet on a horizontal base they are equally matched by their spatial position; in a vertical composition, however, having the upper hand spatially constitutes an advantage, whereas being in the lower position means having to overcome the pull of gravity as well as the opponent's onslaught." (Rudolf Arnheim in The Power of the Center, page 96)

To subscribe to the Thinking About Art Monthly Newsletter, see toward the bottom of the page.

Verticality in Artworks

We read in books on composition that tall, narrow things, such as a lone standing person or a waterfall are best in a tall, narrow format, and wide, spread-out things, like a basically flat landscape or a person lying on a bed are best in a horizontal format. The reason, I remember reading, is simply that it makes for a good fit - for instance a flat landscape or reclining person fits naturally into a horizontal shape, and a standing person fits naturally into a vertical shape.

But I would guess that you'd want your picture to say something more than "The shape of the subject goes well with the shape of the perimeter of the picture." It might be extremely well done and a pleasure to look at but what does it mean? How long can you stay entranced by a picture that hasn't much more to say than that?

The Eiffel Tower - c. 1898
Henri Rousseau
Source: The Athenaeum
(Note that the tall narrow tower, which is the subject of the picture, is not depicted in a vertical format.)

Many people claim to have no meaning in mind when they paint or draw a picture, and this is probably true...but only when it comes to their conscious minds. If we're not doing it purely for profit and we are making the decisions about shapes and subject and so forth on our own, we make artwork because it gives us pleasure to make it, or else we feel compelled to make it whether it's enjoyable or not. We simply must make it.  We do it to express ourselves. We can't put it in words, at least in the same way; we can only express it in paint, or with a pencil, or whatever else we might use.

And if we are expressing ourselves, obviously there must be something to express. That "something" gives the picture its basic meaning (I say "basic" because of course the viewer will bring his or her own ideas to it). It may be something very simple that you're trying to express, or it may be more complex, but you're always saying something, even if it's just by your choice of subject, or even if it's only "Isn't this a cute puppy?" or "Don't you love these shades of red?" Even little children who draw what look like almost scribbles to us are trying to say something about the subject (whether or not we can understand it).

So back to what I was saying before: I'd guess that you'd want your picture to say something more than "The shape of the subject goes well with the shape of the perimeter of the picture."  (Even if it says it ever so beautifully.)

One of the ways that you can say what you have to say is by your choice of the outer shape of the picture, as well as by your choice of the basic shapes and directions within the picture (there are many other elements in the composition that are utilized in expression, but here we are only discussing these basic shapes and directions).

Sleeping Beauty - 1912
Maxfield Parrish
Source: Wikimedia
(Note that the sleeping woman, who is the subject of the picture, is not depicted in a horizontal format.)

I've written some posts recently about horizontality in artworks...about why artists choose horizontal shapes and directions, and now for a while I'll be writing about verticality. I will make these posts short but there will probably be several of them. The next one should be coming up soon as I've already begun it.

To subscribe to the Thinking About Art Monthly Newsletter, see toward the bottom of the page.

Horizontality and Composition

Some people may wonder why I'm writing so much about how we respond to "flat" landscapes (or cityscapes, or most any view other than of a single compact object) when it may seem to them to have little to do with art, but of course it does have much to do with art.
An artist has to know (if only unconsciously) what effects horizontality/verticality/mixed heights have on a viewer. As is the case with any other aspect of a composition he or she must know what to include or not include, and what to emphasize and what to deemphasize in order allow the basic shapes to help get across what it is he or she wishes to "say" about a subject and not inadvertently give the "wrong" message or make it confusing.
Just for a few examples of what you might be trying to get across: possibly you want to emphasize the subjugation of nature by man for his own ends, showing a landscape that seems to not allow for anything accidental, unplanned, or different from what man "needs" - or to make life "easy" - no matter that it might flourish in that environment ... Nothing that is not "necessary" is allowed to protrude/impose itself and although horizontality itself may not be required to achieve the effect you're after in this case (or in others), it could be something you would make use of.
Or you might want to show the triumph of nature (not necessarily plant life ... this could include other manifestations of individuality and accidental effects that interfere with the intention of man to impose his will on what comes naturally) over man's efforts to manipulate it and hold it back/down, in which case you might show a variety of directions and heights, not emphasizing the horizontal at all, or else show definite horizontality peppered by contrasting, very vigorous verticals of various heights (think "weeds"). Or you might want to show a happy mixture of the two ideas - man and nature getting along just fine.
Or perhaps you'd want to give the impression of  "hopelessness" via a barren-looking very flat landscape or show "individual uniqueness and spontaneity is respected and accommodated here" via a landscape in which there is a variety of plant life: bushes, trees, vines, seemingly growing naturally, appearing to not have been planted intentionally by people, where it appears that people have arranged their lives around what's in nature rather than the other way around...As I say, it need not be "plants" and could even consist entirely of man-made structures that appear to not have been constructed to fit a strict plan but instead to have arisen "spontaneously." Or a combination of plants and structures. It could include whatever is seen in the air, too.
These are only a very few examples of the endless possibilities.
You can see how horizontality can help you achieve what you want in some cases, or hinder it if you're not careful in others. (If you do not think about what impression your picture will make because of such things then it may confuse people or you may inadvertently be sabotaging your intention.)
The bottom line is that what is out there (in "real life" or on canvas or paper), no matter whether it's recognizable as things we see in the everyday world or not, has one or more (usually more) "messages" for us, and in art we must know what these are (otherwise why would we bother to produce art ... We can try to copy what we see as if we're a camera or we can just dab or scribble away and try for something "pretty" or "interesting" but if there is nothing in particular we want to communicate, why do it? And what is "artful" about it?).
The messages our pictures convey are not usually communicated only by the alleged "subject matter." They are communicated by the way the entire picture is composed -- through lines, colors, textures, shapes, patterns, rhythm, size relationships, directions, etc. We "understand" what the "whole picture" means because of how all of these things work together. We understand not only because of what we have learned from reading and listening, and from looking at pictures, and from watching videos and movies, from thinking about these things, and even from personal experiences with whatever the subject matter might be, but also from our what you might call "generic" or "non-specific to any particular subject" familiarity with the physical world we live in (i.e., the earth and the tiny part of the universe we're able to experience from here) and how it basically "works." (Our understanding of how gravity works is an example, and this is very important ... There are several posts on this blog that have to do with gravity, though there are presently only two that have gravity as a keyword that I've noted on the list at the right side of the page -- You can take a look at that list for gravity - Click on the word and posts that have quite a bit in them about gravity will come up on one page ... but, also, any post that has to do with the Cartesian grid is also about gravity as the Cartesian grid exists because of gravity.)
Click on the words "horizontal format" in this same list at the right side of each page to see the posts that are most closely related to this one you are reading now.

Stormy Weather

Artist: Jean-Baptiste Camille Corot (1796-1875)

Picture Source: Wikimedia
What do you think Corot might have been trying to communicate about man and nature in this picture, and how did he make use of horizontality to help him do so?
_____
JUST REMEMBER THAT A FLAT LINE SUGGESTS THAT "THERE'S NO LIFE HERE ... THERE'S NO THREAT ... IN FACT IT'S PRETTY DEAD HERE ... WE CAN TAKE OVER NOW."

To subscribe to the Thinking About Art Monthly Newsletter, see toward the bottom of the page.

The Horizontal Landscape and the Suggestion of Barrenness

Almost as soon as I'd finished my last post, on the horizontal format it occurred to me that there was something in that post that may have caused some confusion or wonder about whether or not I was thinking clearly, i.e., my insistence that flat land (or the illusion of it) - and I mean specifically flat land that appears to have little if anything growing naturally on it without a struggle, or a manmade landscape that has a similar profile - suggests barrenness, or a place where nothing can be grown...where life is nipped in the bud, so to speak.

Abandoned cotton farm - Texas, 1938

After I read again what I'd written (after the post had been published) I realized that someone might think that flat land might well suggest fertile ground rather than a barren place as it seems so perfect for farming, since many large and productive farms are indeed on flat land.

Crops growing in the Imperial Valley, California - 2009

I'm not an agricultural expert (not that you thought I was one), but after pondering this it occurred to me that what is now flat, or almost-flat, farmland has often been cleared of trees and/or tall grasses and other naturally-growing plants and leveled as much as possible in order to grow crops.

That is to say, before the farmers came along and began cultivating it (perhaps hundreds or even thousands of years ago) that land may never have looked absolutely flat and barren (at least during the time human eyes have been around to see it), because it wasn't...and so what you see now is not what you would have seen when it was in its natural state (when it may not have been "absolutely flat and barren").

In other cases farmers started growing crops on desert land that is naturally flat (except for usually waterless gulleys formed by occasional heavy rain showers, often coming down from nearby mountains), not because the soil is deep and rich (it isn't) and not because there is plenty of rainwater that falls consistently and will support the crops (there is not); they did it because the land was cheap, because it's easier to get around on and care for crops on a flat surface; and, most importantly, because water was available from elsewhere via irrigation canals and drip tubes, etc.

Flood Irrigation in desert - Yuma, Arizona - 2006

In other words, it seems to me that unless you're a rich agriculturalist or have never seen flat land that isn't under cultivation, an unrelievedly flat landscape (especially when mountains that drain moisture from the clouds are seen nearby) will still suggest barrenness...and if it does suggest fertility to some because of the association in their minds between flat terrain and successful farming, it would still suggest uniformity and homogeneity/lack of individuality, a certain dullness, and "no place to hide" (among other things - see the last post, on the horizontal format). This is especially true of large areas of land - what you might call "vast expanses" of land - which, if you wish to emphasize their vastness and flatness are usually best depicted in a horizontal format (i.e., on a canvas that is of a horizontal shape), though views from a high viewpoint can also convincingly emphasize the amplitude of a large area of land even in a square or even sometimes a vertical picture shape.

_____

I will write more about horizontality in pictures later this month or else in July.

To subscribe to the Thinking About Art Monthly Newsletter, see toward the bottom of the page.

The Horizontal Format - What to use it for and why

The Horizontal Format - What can it be used for and why?



I've written about the circular format (tondos, round artworks) and what kind of subjects and effects it's good for and why. Now I'd like to write about what the horizontal format is good for and why.

We have all heard that you should choose a horizontal composition if the subject itself is basically horizontal or if you want a feeling of serenity. But there are also other possible reasons for choosing a horizontal format. Here are some ideas that it may be useful to consider:

1) When there is a dominant horizontal axis, everything along that axis is perceived more or less "equal" in opportunity, strength, etc.
2) A horizontal format stresses the interaction (or the possibility of interaction) between things that are on the same horizontal level.
3) A horizontal orientation takes advantage of the tendency of people to read a picture from left to right.
4) The horizontal dimension can easily suggest the passage of time.
5) If you want to emphasize the uniquess or "aloneness" of something that is vertical/upright, it might be a good tactic to have a horizontal composition in which the one vertical item (or small cluster of them) is the only thing in a "sea of horizontality" that is not horizontal.
6) A horizontal picture of a human figure (and upright animals, also) emphasizes the groin rather than the head.
7) A hodgepodge of other ideas that horizontality can help get across.
I will explain all of these the best I can, and show some examples.

1) WHEN THERE IS A DOMINANT HORIZONTAL AXIS, EVERYTHING ALONG THAT AXIS IS PERCEIVED AS MORE OR LESS "EQUAL" IN OPPORTUNITY, STRENGTH, ETC. BECAUSE OF THEIR EQUAL SUSCEPTIBILITY TO THE PULL OF GRAVITY.

In a horizontal composition all components that are within the same horizontal "layer" are equally related to the bottom of the picture which we associate with the pull of gravity (assuming the picture is meant to represent life as it is lived here on earth where the effects of gravity as powerful and constant -- In many abstract paintings, for example, gravity as we experience it in our everyday lives is not represented in this way). Being equally subject to the gravitational pull from below they are intuitively perceived by the viewer to be coexisting in the same circumstances, meaning that whatever we find within the same layer in a horizontal composition (if no other factors in the composition nullify this perception) appears to be on equal footing, in the same hierarchical level, nothing within that layer apparently having any significant advantage over anything else within it (though something even poking a tiny bit above the general horizontal mass can give the impression of power over or even danger to the otherwise homogeneous mass they're in the midst of).


Marine, 1890
Maurice Galbraith Cullen (1866 - 1934)
Click on picture to see in larger size

The "horizontal layer of interaction" in the above picture is right at the horizon, between sky and water. The boats, big and small, are in this layer. Although, recognizing the boats are only boats, after all, and not warships, and in fact the boat with the larger profile is actually a small sailboat, we do not assume any kind of confrontation or other physical contact has taken or is about to take place between them, still we get the "feeling" of dominance and danger from that sailboat, as it not only rises far above the other ships (as we see it, not presumably in real life) but also it looks like a knife slicing through the water, going at great speed from left to right, leaving the tiny specks (other boats, which are anchored to the left side of the picture...see 3, below) far behind. [An aside: This tells you that what we "know" -- in this case about the actual sizes and distances between things and probable intentions of the sailors handling their boats -- is not always the same as what we "see," and what we "see" (especially if unconsciously) strongly influences our perception of what we're looking at.]

In a vertical composition, on the other hand, what is "above" is perceived to have some kind of advantage over what is below; if there is a fight, for example, it's a good bet that we will get the feeling that the participant at the top of the picture is going to win as he/she/it has an unfair advantage since the participants, not being side-by-side (on a "level playing field"), are not portrayed as having equal powers or opportunities (the participant above seeming to be less influenced by the force of gravity, he/it appears obviously stronger, more alive, more resistant, more powerful; while the object below seems to us to be more subject to the pull of gravity and therefore is seen as weaker and vulnerable).

There may be other compositional factors at work which modify or even completely nullify this effect, of course (and this is true with regard to all of the possible effects of a horizontal composition described in this post), but we are talking here just about the effects of being on the same horizontal level, especially when the picture itself is in a horizontal format as this makes the left-right axis predominant and our eyes, while looking at the picture, move back and forth sideways more than up and down, thus enhancing the effect of uniformity and equality all across the horizontal plane.

2) A HORIZONTAL FORMAT STRESSES INTERACTION (OR THE POSSIBILITY OF INTERACTION) BETWEEN THINGS THAT ARE ON THE SAME LEVEL
The possibility of interaction between whatever is anywhere along the same level is suggested, most importantly along the main (left-right) axis in a horizontal composition.



Rehearsal of the Ballet, c. 1905-06
Everett Shinn (1876 - 1953)
Click on picture to see in larger size

Although the above horizontal composition isn't particularly wide in comparison to its height, it definitely stresses interaction on the same level. The dancers' heads are in line with those of the stage manager, the choreographer, or whoever those people to the left are; because they are at the same level (not to mention these people appear to be intensely interested in the dancers) they are obviously as important and necessary as those dancers in the production of the ballet (even though they are never seen by the audience). We can see the interaction taking place, actually: The men on the left are watching the dancers very closely; they appear to be inspecting and instructing them, and obviously the dancers would be responding or they would be out of a job. The musician is playing for the dancers; the dancers are dancing to the music. The scenery also seems to be included in among the "equals" and plays its own kind of role in the production.

Probably most humans spend most of the days of their lives living with, walking among, working with, driving on the same roads with, and/or otherwise interacting with (or attempting to avoid) people, animals, and objects sharing the same environment (I'm not including electronic communication; this is about the physical world).

This shared space in which there is the possibility of interaction is usually basically a horizontal one. There may be tall buildings, deep subterranean subways and malls, etc., but when these things empty out the people are back on the same horizontal surface which we all recognize as "ground" level. Above and below ground structures such as those just mentioned would contain their own "ground levels" but the main ground level, where at least most of them live, is "where sky meets earth." In any case (above, below, or at "sky meets earth" level) there is (or is the potential of) interaction between people/animals/things on the same plane, and this plane is emphasized in a horizontal composition.



The moonlight fight between Yoshitsune and Benkei on the Gojobashi, Kyoto, Japan
Utagawa Kuniyoshi (1798 - 1861)
Click on picture to see in larger size

An arching bridge, although not flat is just a "bump" in a horizonal strip in most cases. It is not necessary that the ground actually be perfectly flat for there to be the possibility of interaction between people/animals/objects that are contained within it. Neither is it necessary that the strip be very narrow as of course the scene may be viewed from above ground level, giving us a broader view.

In other words, putting aside the "lumpiness" of our physical environment, basically we live in a horizontal world in which most physical communication (or at least sharing of the same space with the possibility of communication) takes place, be it friendly or be it warlike. Naturally, in a horizontal composition this interaction (or failure to interact) is emphasized as not only does the horizontality of the long edges of the composition make us more aware of this horizontal band of interaction, but also we are able to see a wider view (left to right) and thus get a better idea of what various things or people or animals, etc. are likely to have some contact with each other (if only eye contact; that is communication, too) ... In a narrow composition we can only see what's "right in front of us" as if we have blinders on that prevent us from seeing what is further to the left and right.  Also, more space along this horizontal line of interaction is available to the artist so that he or she can better show relationships (and, possibly, barriers) between whatever and/or whomever inhabits it.

Note: Contact (or the possibility of it) can be shown between things/people/animals that are not (in the picture) on the same level, of course, and often is, but there is more difficulty presumed in achieving that contact - or the contact is likely to be one-way rather than mutual - as non-horizontal contact has a hierarchical connotation. It's usually not "contact between equals." Due to the perceived sameness of susceptibility to the pull of gravity from below (as is mentioned in 1, above) there is a strong connotation of equality among those who are on the same level in the picture...They share the same circumstances and so they can, or at least there is a better possibility that they will (even if they are incompatible), at least be somewhat familiar with each other and understand each other better than those on distant rungs of the hierarchy ever will.

3) A HORIZONTAL ORIENTATION TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THE TENDENCY OF PEOPLE TO READ A PICTURE FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.

"As far as actual eye movements are concerned, scanning from left to right and vice versa occurs somewhat more readily than scanning up and down. In addition there is a well-known tendency, largely independent of actual eye movements, for viewers to perceive the area in the left corner of the visual field as the point of departure and the entire picture as organized from left to right." -- Rudolf Arnheim in The Power of the Center, page 37.


Abram Arkhipov - Led Proshel
Click on picture to see in larger size

Because of our tendency to read a picture from left to right, we are aware that the woman on the left is the "point of departure" in this composition and we tend to adopt her perceived attitude (waiting, but not expecting anything soon) and follow her glance, which here goes from (our) left to right, making us aware of the other people (all of them also apparently waiting for something) and then further right to the horizon where water meets sky. I have no idea what the title of this (in Russian) means or even if it's actually the title, but to me it looks like these people are obviously waiting for a boat (which is presumed to be beyond the horizon they are are oriented toward) with people aboard who mean a lot to them and about whom they are concerned. It is obvious that the boat would be traveling from right to left (as we view the scene) and this idea (right to left travel) makes it seem like it will probably take a long time getting there. And so this picture not only illustrates the idea of reading a picture from left to right but also how the idea of "time" can be easily be suggested in a horizontal format (see 4, just below).

4) THE HORIZONTAL FORMAT CAN EASILY SUGGEST THE PASSAGE OF TIME.

Below is my extremely simplified daily schedule, in horizontal timeline format:



This goes with idea mentioned just above: A horizontal orientation takes advantage of the tendency of people to read a picture from left to right. Timelines have the earliest date at the left.

Because the right half of our brain is more observant and able when it comes to interpreting the meaning of what lies in our visual field -- and the right brain is more in control of what we see to the left (while the left brain is more in control of what we see to the right) -- what's at the left in our field of vision gets more of our attention and seems more important to us, and we identify with what's there and look from there (the left) to the right to see what "lies ahead," to the right (think of a horizontal timeline, which always shows earlier events to the left, later ones to the right).

When we see a scene as beginning at the left the idea that there is a "beginning" implies that something comes afterwards rather than that the subject (for example as it would be in a round artwork with the subject in the middle) is unmovable -- going nowhere. So movement is suggested in the typical horizontal composition and that implies the time to make that movement; this effect is even stronger when the picture is decidedly horizontal. And so we are inclined to interpret a horizontal picture as if it were a scene unfolding from left to right. Of course things are sometimes seen to move in other directions, also (right to left, front to back, back to front), but because of the way we perceive a scene left to right movement seems more natural and easily achieved, so if the artist indicates movement that is NOT left to right the "speed" with which the perceived action unfolds is affected and also the time it seems to take is affected (we feel that time goes from left to right, too). For an example of how this affects our understanding of what is happening in a picture, when something is aimed from right to left the action unfolding in that direction seem slower, more plodding, more difficult - something we may want to imply, or may want to be careful not to imply.


Barge Haulers on the Volga - 1870-73
Ilya Repin (1844 - 1930)

The barge haulers are pulling toward our left and that makes their work seem all the more tortuous. If they were headed toward our right it wouldn't look quite so difficult. Because of the horizontal format, we are able to see where they came from and what they're hauling; besides that, the idea that that big heavy barge is also headed to the left makes it seem like an even more difficult load to pull.

Nicolae Grigorescu (1838 - 1907) - Transport de Provizii - no date

The above picture provides another illustration of how heading to the left makes movement seem slower and more arduous. Note how the same picture looks reversed, below. The oxen appear to be moving quickly in comparison with how plodding they look in the original picture where they're facing to the left.

Nicolae Grigorescu (1838 - 1907) - Transport de Provizii - Picture reversed.

5) IF YOU WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE UNIQUENESS OR "ALONENESS" OF SOMETHING THAT IS VERTICAL/UPRIGHT, IT MIGHT BE A GOOD TACTIC TO HAVE A HORIZONTAL COMPOSITION IN WHICH THE ONE UPRIGHT ITEM (OR SMALL CLUSTER OF THEM) IS THE ONLY THING IN A "SEA OF HORIZONTALITY" THAT IS NOT HORIZONTAL.


A Rest in the Desert, 1897 by Henry F. Farney (1847 - 1916) - Upright objects in a sea of horizontality

6) A HORIZONTAL HUMAN FIGURE EMPHASIZES THE GROIN RATHER THAN THE HEAD.

"Taken by itself, a human figure would be seen as dominated by the head, the home of the main sense organs and the seat of reasoning -- a version supported by the central vertical and the bilateral symmetry it controls. But no such symmetry exists visually around the central horizontal. The balancing center challenges the dominance of the head and proposes a structure organized around the pelvic area." -- Rudolf Arnheim in The Power of the Center, page 98.


Olympia, 1863 by Edouard Manet (1832 - 1883)

7) A HODGEPODGE OF OTHER IDEAS THAT HORIZONTALITY CAN HELP GET ACROSS.

A) Loneliness (This could be easily shown in a horizontal scene where something or someone can be compared with a great deal of space on both sides in the same "interactive" plane)

B) Abandonment (Can you imagine how this can be shown in a horizontal format? I can, but I'm sure that there are other ways and I wouldn't want to plant just that one idea in someone's brain. Contact me if you want to know my idea; I hope I can still think of it by then)

C) Vulnerability (Something that is horizontal is associated with weakness and vulnerability as things that are alive and well and strong are able resist the pull of gravity and stand up and defend themselves while things are are sick or weak have a difficult time becoming vertical on their own nor can they defend themselves well if at all)

D) Distance (time/space) (A long distance can be implied by the length of a horizontal line or plane in relation to a short height, especially if "obstacles" are placed along the path...this makes it seems as if the going will be very slow, taking a lot of time, and taking a lot of time implies a greater distance is having to be covered)

E) Isolation (Same comment as in A, above)

F) Disintegration. Although horizontal things can and do disintegrate, the effect is more noticeable in things that we recognize were upright to start with.

In nature most if not all things will eventually become horizontal in one way or another or a combination of ways. They may, for example, fall over or be knocked down (e.g., by an earthquake) or blown apart (e.g., by a volcano or explosives) or squashed by something heavy from above (a dislodged boulder, perhaps) or attacked and eaten away chemically and/or washed away by water, and eventually become horizontal or disappear altogether (unless before they have disintegrated completely they are lifted up by earth movements or some other force). The damage done to formerly vertical things does not in itself make them become horizontal. It's gravity that does that, pulling down the parts that become loosened.

A scene may be essentially horizontal even when it contains many upright things (such as buildings and walls) if everything is the same height or nearly so (e.g., flat roofs at the same level, no skyscrapers, no towers, no trees or telephone poles) . Even though erosion or other "damage" may not be at all responsible for this "flat all over" look, our intuitive interpretation of the large, unrelieved, horizontal expanse of such a landscape/cityscape/whatever it might be might well be that the place has undergone a vast amount of "erosion" or "disintegration." Intuitively (whether we know better or not) we perceive it as a sleepy and uninteresting place that looks like it has seen better days, and we expect the inhabitants to be lifeless and resigned to their plight rather than willing or able to do anything about it.

G) Barrenness (A horizontal composition can show emptiness not only in the foreground and background but also from side to side; emptiness implies barrenness; where things do not accumulate nothing is being produced; this is a close cousin of Disintegration, above, but it is not the same; barrenness would imply that nothing much was there in the first place and nothing at all is there now -- it is dead because that place does not support life -- while disintegration would imply that there was something thriving once but the place is dying now and whatever might remain is too weak to do anything about it.)


Alexandr Ivanov (1806 - 1858) - painted in 1838

The horizontal format makes this scene look all the more desolate and barren as we see not only depth but great width. Also, the flat ground looks all the flatter (and non-productive) because the painting is quite decidedly horizontal.

H) Hopelessness (See Barrenness, just above and think about how whatever was in the middle of that barren scene would probably be pretty hopeless looking if they were in a horizontal position themselves.)

I) Weakness (See Vulnerability, above)

J) Death (See Vulnerability)

K) Inability to resist (See Vulnerability)

L) Progress (See the last paragraph in No. 4, above, and also think about how showing what's "behind" [usually to the left] in a horizontal scene shows what the person or object "down the road" to the right has passed through and left behind...this can be interpreted as progress if the setting and "props" are amenable to this analysis. If not considered "progress" in the positive sense, it will at least suggest movement in space and time...perhaps with things getting worse or not changing at all).

M) Confrontation (A collision between two obviously incompatible elements that are headed toward each other...or one is headed toward the other which may be stationary...in the same horizontal plane [a horizontal plane being the "interaction" plane...See 2, above] so that you can assume a confrontation is almost inevitable).


Vasily Vasilyevich Vereshchagin (1842 - 1904) - Plotzlicher Angriff - 1871

Above is a very unsubtle example of confrontation on the same plane in a horizontal format.

N) Ignorance of each other or inability to come into contact (You can show two elements in the same horizontal plane [the "interaction" plane] that seem to belong to or want to get in touch with each other yet they can't because of some kind of barrier(s) between them. These don't have to look like "real" barriers, e.g., high sturdy walls with gunmen at the top - just the "idea" of barriers can work, for example a busy street in between or a STOP sign or a fierce looking dog tied up and sitting on the sidewalk - can make it seem as though these things that want to be together will have a difficult time in accomplishing this aim).

0) Invisibility (See 5, above for how to make something stand out, and do the opposite...make the vertical object blend in by, among other things, making it appear as if it's part of the whole horizontal mass and is no different than anything else around it. You might be interested in reading an earlier post of mine, on camouflage, if you'd really like something to "be there" but not seen)

P) Equality or lack of individuality (The horizontal format would reinforce the idea of regimentation and homogeneity/equality for example in pictures of armies marching in lockstep or of breadlines)


Everett Shinn (1876 - 1953) - Out of a Job - News of the Unemployed, 1908

These men are like dots in a line, their heads all on the same level. This is not about individual people who have gathered together for various reasons but about all of them being as one, in equal circumstances, in this case equally jobless and poor and seeking relief. It is very interesting how the opening in this line (probably for cars to pass through) enables us to see that the line is even longer than we might otherwise imagine if it only went from left to right, and yet the men further down the line, heading up another street, still appear at the same horizontal level that the men in the foreground inhabit.

This should give you a lot to think about. I think you'll agree that there's a whole lot more that a horizontal format can be useful for than just to give a feeling of serenity to the picture or provide a "fitting" frame for a horizontal subject.

To subscribe to the Thinking About Art Monthly Newsletter, see toward the bottom of the page.