I was discussing composition and design with a friend the other day who will be teaching a design class. I told her that I have a difficult time talking about composition and design with students because I have dedicated myself to trying to make images that work while breaking the 'rules' of design. As soon as I'm told something is a certain way I begin to see flaws in it and see if there are ways to do the same thing in a different way. Its just the way I'm built I guess. One thing I try to explain is edge activation and balance. Edge activation is easier to explain, but always easier to do. Balance is tough. Visual balance takes on several forms--an even balance is easy--equal parts of one thing balance equal parts of another. But what about a balance that isn't obviously equal. This pict above I consider balanced and yet the majority of the picture is empty--so how can I explain its balance. I use terms like visual weight, asymmetrical balance, subject/non subject story balance and so on, but does that explain it. And is it actually balanced or do I just think it is because its a different way to crop a picture of a referee and I was happy I thought to see it and snap it this way? Composition is tough to explain because all the basic rules, rule of thirds, the golden mean, symmetry, asymmetry and on and on are just that, 'basic' rules and there are so many more ways to make a picture successful. Meadville Tribune photograph by Richard Sayer