The three-act structure and the three-part setup are the same thing. You establish the premise, build-up the concept, then provide a payoff. “It’s as easy as 1, 2, 3”.
What’s the simplest way to represent most stories? You draw a line. It goes from point A to point B, start to finish, where the characters begin and where they end. There’s a whole lot of “middle” there too. What a coincidence, act two tends to be the longer one! Again, “1, 2, 3”.
How about the simplest way to count to (say) start a race? “Go” is unpredictable; “Ready, Go” is barely better; “Ready, Set, Go” gives you a clear cadence. 1, 2, 3. Beginning, middle, end.
As for images: humans are symmetrical with two eyes, we naturally divide the picture into two sides so you wouldn’t be impressed by a “rule of halves”. A rule of thirds is no more than a grid, one where there are clear sides and a middle to the image. A rule of fifths would also work, as would a five-act structure (which is a thing).
Three is the smallest number to which you can reduce a lot of concepts by establishing a pattern.
there's no rules about what looks good or not, obviously. the rule of third is also applied very liberally, you don't have to put focal points dead on thirds. It just is a nice rule that gives you quick results. Ultimatively, it is all up to you to decide what makes a good picture or not.
I personally find the rule of thirds very effective in leading to interesting and forceful compositions.
I’m sure I’m just missing something obvious, but what are the threes? The article has five headings, and it doesn’t look like each is a list of three things.
This is why I like the "Rule of three"[1]. Only once you've done it three times will you truly begin to understand what the abstraction might need to look like.
I always thought the rule of thirds was interesting, because often you could chop a photo down the center, and still get two semi-competent photographs.
maybe the rule of 1/3s was applied to way more than it should be, but i don't think it's one to throw the baby out with the bathwater though. again, it's a good starter rule. once you get skilled enough to start composing shots without needing a check list of rules to apply, you'll see that some of those starter rules getting broken regularly.
a common use of thirds is in graphics use of lower thirds. it's just enough room without being too much. lower quaters would be small. lower halves would be too much. centering your subject in the first 2/3 and leaving the remaing third as looking room isn't bad aesthetically.
so maybe how you are interpretting the ROT is different than how i use it, but you definitely seem to have a grudge
I'm not sure how the article's authors didn't make the connection of the rule of thirds to the rule of threes. The rule of threes is an ancient idea (at least as old as the Romans, "omne trium perfectum", likely older) and is very clearly connected to the rule of thirds. This article is generally wrong about a lot of things which stems from this fundamental misunderstanding that the rule of thirds is somehow new.
- The rule of thirds for visual imagery [1]
- Three-act structure for storytelling and plays [2]
- Three-part setup for stand up comedy [this article]
Rules for content often fall into a rule of threes, and I'd love to know why.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-act_structure
reply