A comment/criticism was posted, then deleted. One issue was the rigid symmetry present in two of the images. Any amount of investigating art history (or more specifically the history of photography, mid 20th century up to the contemporary) will yield many examples of symmetry yet parochial standards, even today, tend to discourage its use in the form of things such as “rule of thirds” (this, itself, an simplified extension of compositional principle sometimes referred to as the “golden mean/ratio” derived from the Greeks and employed to a great degree in Renaissance and post-Renaissance painting). The potential problem in such a standard is two-fold. 1) symmetry (or asymmetry), like many other formal characteristics, is just one element which informs composition. There are a whole host of other potential countering elements. So, to say that symmetry creates sterility, discourages eye movement about the picture plane, etc., is not necessarily the case. A symmetrical image can be dynamic. 2) something roughly viewed as oppositional to ‘dynamic’ can be visually and psychologically compelling, or otherwise conceptually appropriate. Much contemporary imagery rooted in German School landscapes operates this way.
As a teacher I’ve always cringed a bit when I’ve heard the term ‘rule’ used. Better to view such things as suggestions as to effect.
That said, I was excited to discuss the two images which most prominently feature symmetry here, in terms of form and concept(s).
Started out doing photography at the age of 6 using an uncle's old 1940 kodak brownie box camera. At 15 years of age, I decided to buy my very own 1975 Praktica SLR camera. I now shoot with a Nikon D850. I do unpaid TFP and commercial paid work.