I do not know if this makes sense to anyone but me..

But I have the thought that 'rules of composition' arent meant to MAKE photographs, in the field they are to be ignored.....

I believe the rules are a possible way to understand why certain photographs are good.. Not neccesarily why all photographs composed in such a way are good but... a way to explain why some images are a success...

I can see how this way of thinking could be confusing, it could be easy to jump to thinking 'this is good because of X, now I will compose this way in the field' But what I am describing is more of a happy accident, "hey, it really does work!"

In my work, I generally find this to be the case, being seperated from the actual event of making a photograph I find that I can think in this way and be happy with my results. While in the field I ignored all the 'rules' and they only come into play when I try to understand why a certain photograph I like is good.. not so I can repeat it, just to know... (and some photos I like apply to no rule..)