18. Shape Basics - Dynamic vs. Static Shapes

This lesson comes almost entirely from this great video by Stan Prokopenko. I will try to expand on it...

In visual art, there are static shapes and dynamic shapes. Static shapes tend to be simple, stable, solid, perhaps boring things - usually inorganic, pillars, poles, squares and rectangles. They stand up straight, they emit strength, repetition, and regularity.

Dynamic shapes are more exciting. They're often twisted organic shapes, perhaps asymmetrical, perhaps unbalanced, or breaking apart. Distorted, contorted. We like to view dynamic shapes because they feel alive, full of energy, full of possibility.

So, how does one see the difference? Well, let's start with a static shape, and play with it. Here's a rectangle:

Note how the one on the left seems stable and safe? The one on the right, however is more dynamic, because it is leaning to one side (like the leaning tower of Pisa). That's the only difference, but it's enough to indicate tension, based on what we know about gravity (see my composition lesson on that here).

But, there are more ways to make a rectangle dynamic. You can squash it, implying the tension of compression:

Note, this new compressed shape still feels fairly regular and stable. That's because both sides handle the compression evenly, symmetrically. But, what if the shape were asymmetrical, like so:

Now, the shape on the right more closely resembles the calf muscle on a person's leg. It's a more complex shape, suggesting complicated inner workings - a combination of forces that pressed it into that shape. But, the central axis of all these shapes is still a vertical line down the middle. Let's change that:

The rectangle is no more. It has been twisted into a C shape, like a piece of macaroni. With a curved Line of Action, it is now more dynamic. And yet, it still doesn't hold or suggest maximum tension. Let's change that...

In this example, the macaroni has been replaced with a more dynamic shape, one that shows stretching on its left side contrasted with compression on its right. As the contortion increases (far right example) the tension and therefore dynamism also increases. Doesn't it feel like it wants to spring back into an upright shape? And yet... There's one more thing we might change to make it still more dynamic. The shape is still symmetrical, if you cut it horizontally through the middle. Let's change that:

There, now the top part of this shape is smaller than the lower half. Nothing symmetrical here! We're getting more, and more dynamic. But, wait, there's still more we can do! Let's play with complexity on the right side, adding more twists, turns, even added shapes, to contrast it with the simple sweep of the left side:

See how the shape on the right has lots of implied action and energy, like it's being ripped apart? It almost feels like a punching bag messed with Mike Tyson. We've come a long way from that simple rectangle above. Can with push this further?

Ooops! We broke it! Still, it's pretty dynamic, isn't it? Let's review everything we did to this rectangle. We leaned it over, we compressed it, we bent it and folded it over, asymmetrically. We pinched it's side, and ultimately snapped it into pieces. Note: all these affects are cumulative. They add together to make a shape more dynamic - you can choose any one method or a combination of all of them.

Graceful, Elegant Shapes

Here's a question, going back through all these contortions and diagonals, was there any point where the shapes were prettiest? The most graceful, or elegant?

Personally, I like the shapes in figures 3, 4, and 5. The last two illustrations seem a bit extreme for my tastes - exciting yes, but a bit too shocking and painful to my taste. And the first two figures show simple, boring, unmoving shapes. I think there is grace in the even, planned movements one sees in the play between these extremes. I will look for examples, and add them in later, but I hope you see what I'm saying.