Talk:Rabatment of the rectangle

A fact from Rabatment of the rectangle appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 March 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Renaissance artists and architects used rabatment of the rectangle as a compositional tool in their work?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/March.

Wikipedia

Pictures needed[edit]

The geometric meaning is clear, but it is not clear how the concept is actually used in art. One or two examples of paintings using it would be very helpful. Also, why is this article within the scope of Wikiproject Film? If the reason is that rabatment is used in film also an example or two of films using it (the titles if still pictures cannot be obtained) would also be helpful. SpinningSpark 20:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on both points. Actual graphic images should be introduced as examples, with an overlay of rabatment lines. The film project banner doesn't seem too apt in retrospect. Architecture is probably more appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been searching for examples in reliable sources where the artwork also exists on commons. Didn't find any exact matches, but this example from Monet has a couple of very similar works on commons:

which could easily have the rabatment marked on them. SpinningSpark 02:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those have at least one prominent element on a rabatment line. I've been looking as well... here's my haul:

Some of these are dynamic, where elements in the image are not specifically lined up on the rabatment but are edging up to or enclosed by it. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking but have not found a firm example of the topic in an architectural facade. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern art examples:

The upright woman's portrait has the central eye on one rabatment line and the whole face enclosed by the upper square. Binksternet (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The central eye" - as in cyclops you mean? I don't think that one counts, nice picture though it is, since it is not the artist's composition, it is a detail from

SpinningSpark 20:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh... I like the composition of the detail much more than the full image. :/

Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, but if one is going to show how rabatment is used by an artist, one has to show an image where the artist actually used it. SpinningSpark 21:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, except that we do not know whether any of these examples are ones where the artist actually used rabatment lines in composition. We are forced to analyze the images after the fact, not knowing whether the result was conscious or unconscious or just happy accident. I would not like to fabricate the artist's rationale, so instead I would just say in the image captions that its elements are in so-and-so relation to the lines, not that the artist intended anything. This opens up our image possibilities to those not intended by the artist. Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the artist has signed the detail (on her arm), making it a new derivative work, a framing with intent. Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had noticed that. we do not know whether any of these examples are ones where the artist actually used rabatment lines in composition - that is why I picked Monet's Poppies because the source showed a very similar Monet as an example and the source says it is rabatment. SpinningSpark 18:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some possible methods of presentation:

Let's discuss which ones to use (plus any others) and how to show the lines to the viewer. Do the double images help, the ones with no lines placed next to rabatment lines? Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My idea, while you were obviously being much busier than me, was to use a semi-transparent marking,

SpinningSpark 21:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that either Boatman pulling or Rembrandt most clearly demonstrate both rebatments and either Poppies or Fishing most clearly demonstrate a single rebatment. The last two also both demonstrate the principle that rebatments are most often on the right in cultures which read from left to right. SpinningSpark 21:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your semi-transparent square works well in that Monet poppy field image but the tactic would probably get lost in some of the other examples such as the Rembrandt studio.

I haven't seen any of the sources say that left-to-right reading cultures favor a right hand rabatment line. If we can support the assertion it would be a good addition to the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did see it in one of the sources, I didn't make it up. I suppose you want me to find it again? SpinningSpark 18:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that wasn't too difficult, it was the same source linked above re the Monet picture. SpinningSpark 18:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility: mentioned at http://artworksandartwords.org/?p=58 Matthew Miller (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That image is pretty busy... just about any line can be imagined in it. Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I threw four images into the article as examples. Please tweak the captions or layout to suit your idea of the best presentation. I'm 100% open to discussion on this. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

35 mm film[edit]

35 mm film can have a number of aspect ratios, but the classic one is Academy ratio, 1.375 : 1 -- i.e. just a fraction more than 4:3 -- but not 3:2 as this article appears to imply. Jheald (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. As far as I know, 35mm movie film has ~~never~~ been made in a 3:2 aspect ratio. But 35mm photographs are often shot in 3:2 ("8 perf"). See Aspect ratio (image) for details. Correction, VistaVision was 3:2 in the camera, but was "masked" to different ratios in theatres. Was used only briefly in the 70s. The Interior (Talk) 20:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so it's a stills ratio. That could be made clear. Jheald (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The medium is not so important as the ratio. Computer images and paintings that are 3:2 share the same characteristic: that rabatment lines and rule of thirds lines are the same. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording a tad. Personally, I think it sad that this fundamental concept (the rule of thirds) that worked so well with 135 film was overlooked by digital camera makers when they adopted the 4:3 ratio. Of course you can still compose using the rule in 4:3, but there was a mathematical simplicity to it with 135 that this article made me think about. The Interior (Talk) 21:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the 3:2 ratio is still the most common for digital SLR cameras, both in the APS-C format and full-frame. The only exception is the Olympus/Panasonic "Four Thirds" alliance. Matthew Miller (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Whirling rectangles"[edit]

As I would see it, the whirling rectangles do not "approximate" the golden spiral -- rather, their corners lie exactly on the golden spiral. Jheald (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the Czech wiki[edit]

About picture composition see this article, please: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historie_kompozice_obraz%C5%AF

or: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obrazov%C3%A1_kompozice Thanx, --85.207.18.54 (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That second link includes the image on the right. It is 3:2 ratio, so the rabatment line and the rule of thirds is the same line. The tower peak lines up perfectly with the rabatment line, putting the mass of the foreground circular mechanism into the right-hand square. Binksternet (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph examples[edit]

There's one way to say that the artist intended to have a rabatment-based composition: make the image yourself. Here are some photos of mine upon which I overlaid rabatment lines, purposely cropping and framing up the images to show some aspect of rabatment:

I know it would be best to show known artworks, but perhaps one of these could be introduced for the dual purpose of suggesting rabatment is possible with photography and to be able to say that the "artist" absolutely intended rabatment. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

Has spelling been revised to rabatment? I was taught rabattement at my UK College of Architecture & Fine Arts in the late 60's. Rabattement is also the only spelling that shows up in my search of all (free) online dictionaries. If rabatment is the American spelling maybe both useages should be noted.

eg: Century Dictionary definition: Rabattement - Noun.

An operation of descriptive geometry consisting in representing a plane as rotated about one of its traces until it is brought into a plane of projection, with a view of performing other operations more easily performed in such a situation, after which the plane is to be rotated back to its proper position. Tiddy (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the Oxford English Dictionary of 2003, it says the word rabat was first used in regard to geometry in 1885, and that other common forms of the word are rabatting, rabatted and rabatment. Less common are rebat and rebate from the French rebattre. Also mentioned are rebatement from 1931 and rabattement from 1949. The word rabatment was noted in 1950, so it was not out of use or replaced. In the OED, the word rabatte is only said to be an obsolete version of rabbit, the animal. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]