Rules

That's one where Pablo and I agree. At some point you need to be able to go beyond the rules to express your idea in your own way, but I do believe you need to understand them first otherwise you're just flailing around, throwing darts while blindfolded.

I agree with DK

Read my landing page: http://www.art-marleneburns.com/home.html

Like your landing page Marlene. I would have to say my training was classical as well but how does this explain Outsider Artist who may have no training or knowledge of art and yet are able to produce some highly interesting work?

can they produce it consistently?
nah

they can claim to ignore the rules...but how exactly does one ignore what one hasn't acknowledged?

there is no such thing as rules. rules are there for people that don't know how to make anything. once people get stuck in a rule, or that there has to be rules, they won't get that far.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

In some cases I would say yes to that Marlene.

aha, but by then, they have practiced...and people have seen it and commented...and their learning has become more subliminal.

I'll go so far as to say that there can always been an exception because there are kids that display rare musical abilities and people who can speak foreign languages suddenly.
For the sake of discussion, are we going to talk about 'generally' or all inclusive?

Mike, I think Ronald would agree that the term rules applies to elements of good design, color, light, space, repetition, thirds ,etc....

Technically speaking I'd be considered an outsider Ron. Being an outsider doesn't mean you are not familiar with basic artistic principles.

Wouldn't it be great to say something awesome that others may quote rather than keep posting a line that someone else once said?

◕‿◕

📷 Michel
🌎 TravelNotes.org - Online Guide to Travel.

i never learned the rules until i did and they ruined me until i decided to break them.

Ok Travel Pics, go ahead.

I just did it:

Wouldn't it be great to say something awesome that others may quote rather than keep posting a line that someone else once said?

Here's my awesome quote; "Everyone should own a piece of art by David King", feel free to share.

"Both beautiful quotes"- Ronald Walker

Art is easier to learn with certain rules in place. It helps reduce the errors that we normally "learn" to avoid with time and experience. It helps one to understand what otherwise might need to be explained before getting the feet wet. Once they're learned however, they become a base on which to build. Rules then become more like guidelines. Something to follow but not be strictly enforced... like keeping in the right direction even if you're not on the beaten path.

Sometimes it's more interesting to veer off in the direction of your peripheral vision instead of maintaining a straight line. Guidelines help you to maneuver in a way that avoids dead ends.

After a while, it's extremely difficult NOT to take that branch off the main road but, if you've never seen where the main road leads, you'll also never know where it takes you.

I learned Principles of Design......not the Rules of Design.

prin·ci·ple
ˈprinsəpəl/
noun
noun: principle; plural noun: principles
1.
a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
"the basic principles of Christianity"
synonyms:
truth, proposition, concept, idea, theory, assumption, fundamental, essential, ground rule
"elementary principles"
a rule or belief governing one's personal behavior.
"struggling to be true to their own principles"
synonyms:
morals, morality, (code of) ethics, beliefs, ideals, standards; More
integrity, uprightness, righteousness, virtue, probity, (sense of) honor, decency, conscience, scruples
"a woman of principle"
morally correct behavior and attitudes.
"a man of principle"
synonyms:
morals, morality, (code of) ethics, beliefs, ideals, standards; More
integrity, uprightness, righteousness, virtue, probity, (sense of) honor, decency, conscience, scruples
"a woman of principle"
a general scientific theorem or law that has numerous special applications across a wide field.
a natural law forming the basis for the construction or working of a machine.
"these machines all operate on the same general principle"
2.
a fundamental source or basis of something.
"the first principle of all things was water"

If rules are limitations.......my studio classes were in constructs or additions as I saw fit.

Dave

As far as I'm concerned, following rules has little or nothing to do with art. In art, there are no rules. There are techniques and color theories and design systems/principles that, if understood, can make many artistic endeavors easier, but they Are. Not. Rules.

Sorry Pablo.

Everything has rules, otherwise there's only chaos. Rules can be broken or at least bent without defaulting to chaos. The term "Rules" can have a wide meaning especially when it comes to art and can be flexible in its integrity especially at certain times and circumstances. I personally prefer the term "guidelines" which has less of a hard and fast connotation. "Rules" the way I see it here, is a general term, like people refer to all copying machines as "Xerox" or all editing as "Photo-shopped".

Art rules don't determine when art looks right. What looks right determines the art rules. What looks "right" to some may look "wrong" to others and vice versa...thus a debate starts...like what is good music? And like musical trends or furniture styles, things cycle like an ongoing spiral as "ideals" change, blend and redevelop. If there was in fact a formula for good art, it would all look the same. But not even all the art from a single artist looks the same, as that artist progresses in there own individual spiral. Sometimes it is good to even not like your own art just to jump start a new personal direction.

What are these rules that you speak of? LOL

Dont run with scissors.

Dave

I prefer techniques to rules in photography because I know I will break the "rules" as soon as I decide that "this" looks great whether anyone else thinks "this" looks great also. Here's my intellect quote for the day "You're the artist, just go with your gut ".

DK It is possible to have within your view two or more bodies of water on different planes. Go on a hike in the High Uinta mountains in certain areas and you will witness this.

It is! I have seen this also when I went around Europe and I cannot for the life of me remember where it was. But it was really strange

Drew, behave

Well Abbie, when the horizon is hidden then it is not easy determining it. When looking strait ahead, we tend to look nearly 90 degrees or normal to the surface, often on uneven ground. Many optical illusions can be explained because of this phenomena.
Also. One can take a carpenter level, the longer the better and set it level. Looking down it like a barrel of a gun, and pointing it in the direction of the horizon while maintaining the level sight, One will notice that the horizon is below the line of sight. All land surveyors know this. This phenomena is caused by the curvature of the earth.

Ain't misbehaving Abbie. Don't what the rule to be broken like a nunn breaks a rule over knuckles!

Flaws are not logical fallacies. Flaws are unintentional un wanted errors. Flaws are the opposite of pristine.

Drew,

The Last Supper is a great perspective piece, but in designing it da Vinci found the perspective was not going to work all the way to the edges or to the framing of the image. He bent space to make it work. To me that is a flaw in how art in general is made.

It is not a fallacy nor an unwanted error nor the opposite of pristine.It is the inability of artists in general to capture the actual visual reality.

Dave

Interesting Dave B., fascinating how artist bend and break the rules.

I wasn't talking about flaws Drew, IMO the Mona Lisa landscape is illogical in many different ways but I think the horse is beyond dead now.

LOL! I don't know if it is dead, Dave B may try to revive the old nag just to see it drop again!

Drew,

It would be easy to call them the rules of perspective, but they are fundamentally flawed. The principles of design allow much more freedom to artists than thinking one is a radical by braking a rule. Instead one is a freed, hopefully enlightened designer. A designer who goes well beyond the expectations of the past.

Dave

I didn't get credit for the horizon line that goes in one ear and doesn't come out the other. That's essentially what one of the implied horizons does.

I sulk in my tent like Achilles.

And I want my towel back.

Here's a new idea about Mona Lisa: She has a waterfall inside her head. How surreal is that?

Cheryl, If you stated that the horizon goes in one ear and comes out the other than you get full credit and a grand slam! I just missed it! A Thousand apologies if I did!

It's this one: "Are you talking about the horizon line that goes in her left ear, but doesn't come out her right ear?"

It's in the Big Skip, if you go back and re-read the posts, you'll find it.

And then Joy commented about that being a body of water at the base of some mountains. She might be right, there's a lot of atmospheric effect in the background, so there are a number of possibilities RE: what could be hidden in the mist. Or not.

Ambiguous, just like that famous smile.

Cheryl,
You are ABSOLUTELY correct! The implied horizons do go in one ear and out the other! Just like my ability to pick that up as 2 different horizons!
1001 apologies!

No... that's the problem, or the Escheresque manipulation of visual space:

They DON'T go out the other ear. They stick inside her head and stay there... unless there's a waterfall or some kind of horizon-ramp inside her head. Or behind her head, if we want to be more boring, and equally surreal.

Cheryl, That is the whole point. Two horizons do not come together. They are parallel. There is logically only one horizon. Logic is broken thus a logical fallacy.

Nonetheless, as I stated. It's controversial because the horizons are implied.

I think it is interesting though. It gets us thinking about the intriguing nature of the painting.

The...how'd you say....escheresque space, is intriguing. I think of it as Gaussian or noneuclidean space which is a fascinating branch of mathematics and optics and even spacetime physics.
Reguarding the waterfall behind the head. It is both correct and not correct. Following the
Schrödinger's cat logic. We will never know until Mona's head is removed.

One can not eliminate that old Leo very well was just working with a couple of different drawings that he made work. Kinda like a forced closure.

"Everyone should own a piece of art by David King"

I agree

Ha! I forgot I even posted that, of course I did it with tongue firmly in cheek.

Drew:

I was (gently, I hope) teasing you about writing "in one ear and out the other" when I don't think that was what you meant.

I suspect that if we removed Mona Lisa's head, all we would find is blank canvas. The waterfall is conceptual. David B. would like that idea, I imagine.

********

David K: That was tongue in cheek? But... but...but... I believed you !!

I choose to believe in the waterfall!!!

The subject is fascinating. I don't know if any preliminary sketches of the background exist.

ditto the belief in the waterfall.

Dave

WOW! I see an opportunity Here! Dave B. Your are quite capable to run with your belief! You can easily Photoshop The Mona Lisa with her head removed and in place your believed construct in its place! This is your idea not mind so I would not say, hey Dave this was my idea! Not to worry!

Drew,

As a premier painter you would be able to do that concept much better justice than I can.

I say you run with it.

Run Drew run!!

Dave

Thanks for the encouragement Dave B. I have already done a painting that incorporates Gaussian-like geometry. In fact it's on display at the UNF gallery as I type.

As they say, do it again.

Dave

I did Dave B., with another work. It was with a different master sculpture's bronze. Thatz one thing about the University I will not miss. That is working with master copies. Oh! It's a great research and skill builder but if were not for reinterpretation utilising noneuclidean space or experimental materials and developing unique techniques then it would have been just checking the box!

Drew,

That is over my head.

Dave

No it's not Dave B. I don't believe that for a minute. What I do believe is this thread and its concentration on artist and rules is a great subject for discussion.

Floyd popped in. He could share his unfathomable wisdom on the subject. We know he likes Dave Kz stuff. Just wondering if he has something relevant to add to art and rules and how artist change them.