Should art have rules?

Question

Art is supposed to be interpretative, so there is no right and wrong. But rules (i.e. music rules, painting rules and techniques, grammar and spelling, etc.) provide structure which delineates right and wrong. Doesn't that go against the concept of art?

Answer 1

I read all the answers and they were really great.

What can I add or subtract or divide or multiply?

One point is that rules are necessary as building blocks. Is that so? Suppose you decide to change the very foundation - suppose you decide to change even the "building blocks", the technique - suppose you decide to do something truly original and you will bring about the birth of something new.

Another point was that you have to know the rules to break them. Is that so? Suppose you don't know the rules, you don't have to break them, you just go your own way regardless, can't that happen as well?

My idea is this - rules or no rules - if they are there or not, if I know them or not, I want to be free and I want to do whatever I want.

Now here are the lyrics to "My Way" by Paul Anka

And now, the end is near
And so I face the final curtain
My friend, I'll say it clear
I'll state my case, of which I'm certain

I've lived a life that's full
I've traveled each and every highway
But more, much more than this
I did it my way

Regrets, I've had a few
But then again, too few to mention
I did what I had to do
And saw it through without exemption

I planned each charted course
Each careful step along the byway
But more, much more than this
I did it my way

Yes, there were times, I'm sure you knew
When I bit off more than I could chew
But through it all, when there was doubt
I ate it up and spit it out
I faced it all and I stood tall
And did it my way

I've loved, I've laughed and cried
I've had my fill, my share of losing
And now, as tears subside
I find it all so amusing

To think I did all that
And may I say - not in a shy way
No, oh no not me
I did it my way

For what is a man, what has he got
If not himself, then he has naught
To say the things he truly feels
And not the words of one who kneels
The record shows I took the blows
And did it my way

Answer 2

The term "art" provides a clue as to what is art. Not every painting or sculpture or installment of whatever kind can be considered "art". There are guidelines to the interpretation of what is art. Yes, the viewer extracts their own particular significance to whatever piece of art they are admiring, but there are guidelines. I wouldn't call them rules, which imply something written in stone, but the interpretative nature in art means to give the viewer this freedom to insert their own individual stance to find meaning in a work of art. Art being interpretive, does not exclude lack of any structure, without which there would be complete chaos. There is an underlying structure. Art has to meet certain objectives to remain in the realm of what is designated "art". Art is magical, in this respect. Art can do many things! It can challenge one's mind. It can make social commentary. It can decorate a wall. It can be subliminally suggestive. It can portray mystery, emotion, be descriptive, record visual data for posterity. It can be comical, entertaining, puzzling, rebellious, banal, eye catching, mesmerizing (op art).....ad infinitum. Sounds almost to take on human characteristics and reflect what the human mind is all about? Art is a mirror to the soul, perhaps? Why do some of us feel threatened when a concept can have many interpretations? Why do we keep looking for 1,2,3 and not 4 or 5 or 6? Too hard to keep track of multiple realities, are our minds that limited in scope? No, we're just afraid to realize that there may be more than a set number of dimensions. That old "fear of the unknown" I think. Get a gate, put some cement around it, tie it down! It might get out of control! God forbid we should have to use our intelligence! Don't worry, if it really isn't art, no one will buy it! Let's give ourselves more votes of self-confidence! We're truly very intelligent beings. I think we can handle interpretation in art and don't worry, that embodies "rules". If it's boring to interpret or there's nothing there to interpret, it won't be classed as art, would it? I know, it's hard to keep evolving into the future, but don't give up. You'll be O.K. I agree some artists go over the top. Many works are not my cup of tea, either, but, all in all, the world would be an extremely boring place were it not for the visual excitement provided by that sometime wacky part of our identities. Some do it better than others. Some works are noteworthy, others are best used for toilet paper. But all in the name of human expression. The built-in controls of fame, monetary reward and appealing visual stimulation all hold the invisible reins around the enigmatic world of art. And our human intelligence to appreciate anyone's efforts in that arena.

Answer 3

No, it doesn't.

The purpose of art is to create something that evokes an emotion (e.g. wonder, fear, happiness, etc.) in another person. In order to make the art intelligible to other people than the artist, it is useful to follow certain rules to help it be so. For example, a book without grammar might mean the world to the wrighter, but will be unintelligible to anyone who anyone else who tried to read it. other types of art, such as freestyle poetry don't follow any rules, and can be harder to understand. So really, an artist doesn't actually have to follow any of the rules, they just make it easier for other people to understand the artist's work.

Answer 4

The rules you refer to have to do with communicating art, they are not the art themselves. There are no real rules in art as such. If rules are set for art then they would cease to be art. For as long as art is humanities, there can be no right or wrong art. You need a voice to sing. Whatever you sing is song even if you croak. It is the business of those who must communicate your song to begin to classify your voice for universal audiences but then the deed has been done and you have expressed yourself.

Answer 5

The concept of art should always be based upon the 5 senses and how someone is feeling at that particular moment. Just my opinion.

Answer 6

not it does not go against the concept of art there has to be a base line for quality. for everything to evolve it has to have a place to start . dance , painting , writing ect needs to have a basis of technique from which to start. tecnique is essential but so is creativity it is up to the artiest to educate themselves to build qualifications creativity however is what makes the technique into art.It is up to the artiest to take what he she has learned put their own twist on it and help it evolve now that's art.
i think a ballerina with no technical training would be sloppy.
you have to know the rules before you break them this was a quote from a floral designer encouraging me to go to trade school. she was right .now i am a master floral designer saught out for my unique cutting edge with great mechanic skills in my field

Answer 7

All forms of art are subjective. There should be no rules in expression, after all, everyone is not going to like everything.

Answer 8

Art is the expression of the mind: opening thoughts, emotion and experience can lead to a very expressive piece of art and no one should have to be limited to any rules or regulations. if they were, art would be dull.

Answer 9

There is no absolute "right" and "wrong" when it comes to art. You do, however, need basic building blocks to produce good art. But, once you have mastered the basics, how you use them to create your art is up to you.

Answer 10

I think structure is created by demand. If society doesn't like an artist's work, I think it serves to steer the artist into a new direction and ultimately causes that artist to continuely expand his creativity.