Is there any proof that the «Rule of Third's»* especially it's power/focal points is more than just a self-referential myth?
As I understands it prevents beginners from falling for the symmetric layout / static center composition trap,
but other than that I think it's just not any good indicator for a good picture.
* also applies to golden ratio and fibonacci spirals
see:
There is one Rule of Art that supersedes any and all rules people may mention: All rules are actually guidelines. They're just things that people have noticed usually result in a more pleasing image; they're easy things to check for.
Another way to look at it is that they are markers of here there be dragons: when you know a rule, being aware that you're breaking it reminds you to make sure you're breaking it with flair, and to not break twenty other rules at the same time.
(You can even make pretty interesting work by choosing a rule and deliberately breaking it as much as you can - I've seen some very neat pieces that aggressively break the rule of "avoid tangents", for instance. Edit: even in the article at hand - halfway down the page, you'll find a sequence that is shot with everything dead center, because the moment calls for the static, deadening effect of that kind of composition.)
Or another way: all of these "rules" of art are like "patterns" and "code smells" are for programmers. Observations about broad patterns of design, notes on little stylistic tics that can add up to a big difference over the course of a large project.
tl;dr: it's a broad simplification of a complex problem into a short phrase, experts can and will go far beyond it.
It's down there at the end, that CG Boarding Page 14. Those Focal Points I just don't get them. Can't they just say make your frame look good and less boring by putting your object of interest off center, or did that rule just stick because it's easy to remember and easy to program and overlay.
As someone who's seen a lot of animated features, Fantastic Mr. Fox was fascinating. It made me realize just how much dogma I'd picked up about what animated features are "supposed" to be, pretty much entirely inherited from the choices Disney made in the 50s, which have been relentlessly copied by pretty much every animated feature ever since. FMF was from a very different place, and I found it incredibly strong because of that.
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.
As I understands it prevents beginners from falling for the symmetric layout / static center composition trap, but other than that I think it's just not any good indicator for a good picture.
* also applies to golden ratio and fibonacci spirals see:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3118007