# Why Art Must have Rules



## Overread (Oct 12, 2020)

I've often read from people that art not only should not, but cannot have "rules" which define its creation. These people further often believe that you have to be "born with the eye" for art and that its a simple fact that if you don't have it, you cannot learn it.

Others argue that by learning the rules you restrict your potential creativity because you are confining yourself to a limited set of view points instead of letting your creative side have freedom to experiment.


So lets begin looking at the first statement, that there are no "rules" of art. So there are no rules, how do you improve? This group will often advise a person asking such a question to go and look at the work of the masters and study their creations. 

Without realising it they are creating two statements which are directly at odds with each other. For if the masters of a craft can be emulated then that supposes that there are elements within their creations which can be repeated. Patterns which create interest, which display creativity. That if you can spot those patterns you could learn them, emulate them and thus incorporate them into your own photography. Furthermore that these patterns can be emulated outside of simply coping the exact same creation. 

The thing is people have been doing this for generations and when they discover  one of these patterns they describe it; put a name to it and suddenly its an artistic theory - which can sometimes get renamed to a compositional "rule". Rule in this context not being a series of instructions that you MUST follow*; but rather an explanation of a compositional element. Much like the "Laws of Physics" do not define what physics should be, but instead are ways to understand how physics works. 
So if you believe that the masters can be copied then you already believe in the concept of artistic theories. Denying yourself (and advising others to deny themselves) of studying the vast body of compositional rules and theories is thus holding people back. It's denying them generations of study in the hope that they might catch one or two of those theories for themselves. 



Now lets move to the second concept - that you have to be born with it. This is a very strange statement to make to a whole subject and concept. Rarely does anyone ever say that you have to be born to be an electrician; or a runner; or a plumber or a bank manager. Furthermore when you look at the majority of the past masters in almost any creative field you notice that most did spend copious amounts of time being taught the subject. Often starting at a very young age and focusing on the subject as they grew older. So if the past masters had to spend so many years in school learning, why suddenly cannot others hope to do the same? 
I believe this viewpoint comes from a failing in many modern school systems, whereby art is a somewhat overlooked and considered "lesser" subject. As a result it has less time accorded to it and, I'd argue, that many of the teachers lack time and training/experience to be effective at teaching the fundamentals, let alone the more advanced. As a result it tends to be a subject where little instruction is given; where there is no time for proper practice and the system relies on "natural talent/interest" in students to make that up in their free time. This reinforces the idea in many that its a "born with skill" as they see themselves fail and others show far greater success with the same level of teaching - even though those showing a higher success are likely spending far more hours outside of class practising. 



Then the third point, that by learning the rules and theories of art you are restricting yourself and your creative potential. I think this one comes around, especially in photography, because the literature is very limited in photography focused books. At least for your beginner to intermediate books the majority tend to focus on only a tiny handful of theories - most often things like the "rule of thirds", leading lines and others. I think this creates a false impression that there's only a very limited number of theories to work within. If you restrict yourself like that then, yes, it will restrict your creative potential. Because you are only exposing yourself to a tiny fraction of the greater whole. 
Instead I'd argue that learning the theories is not limiting but releasing. By learning theories and starting to learn more than just the few introduction ones; you start to learn better how to "talk" with images and art. You are building a language up, a visual language. As a result by learning more and more theories and means by which to talk in this new language, you give yourself far greater scope to express yourself with your creations. Art is like a language and the greater you learn it the greater your scope for creativity is. You'd never argue that an author should not study literature; to read the works of masters; to understand the mechanics of the language they write in - just the same you should never argue that an artist should not study art. 






In the end art must have rules, it must have theories. This allows for repetition, emulation and for the whole concept of a "master" of their craft. To argue otherwise would be to suggest that art is a purely random element; something that is unfathomable and which, as a result, can never be emulated nor expanded. 
I think photographers get this viewpoint partly because photography has the power to create even when art isn't important within the photo. There are many great works of photography where the importance has nothing to do with art; where its measured by the emotional connection to what is shown; where political elements are captured; or key moments in time. Things that hold no (or limited) artistic merit, but which are captivating for that they show in that moment of time. 

But that, in my view, does not diminish the reality of art; that art is a subject like any other. That you CAN learn it, that you are not born with or without it. That the average person can learn, benefit from learning and broaden their creative scope through the study of it as a subject. 


*Though its important to note that at various points in history this is just what they were used as by the artistic elite to control their market and product


----------



## zombiesniper (Oct 13, 2020)

Agree.

There must be a criteria in order to asses a piece of work. Without it everyone is already an exceptional photographer and every image is a masterpiece. And we know this isn't true.

I think where it gets into a grey area is how much emphasis one puts on the "rules". Some will abide bye them at all costs. Even if this makes the image less pleasing for it. Others are so set against them, and their images suffer for "the art".

Like most things, my preferences and moderation I find is the key. For me there are no hard rules to follow. I have learned them and if the image suits it I do take them into account. But there's a difference between making an informed decision and just bucking the system.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 13, 2020)

zombiesniper said:


> But there's a difference between making an informed decision and just bucking the system.



Beat me to the point. Rules give you a starting point not an end. However there are things that exist for a reason. Arrangement of the elements in a composition can and does have an effect on how the viewer perceives your work.  Static compositions tend to inspire calm and tranquility in the viewer, while dynamic compositions create unease or excitement. The same can be said with the use of color theory.  We see blues and greens as cooler and red as warmer. There's some other things like top loading/bottom loading, contrast, and focus that also affect the viewers senses. The thing is, it doesn't matter how much talent you have, if you present it in a manner that goes against time tested logic, you run the risk of no one liking or getting it. 

As to being born with talent, I believe there are some who are born with an advantage. The ability to differentiate between subtle hue differences varies quite a bit between individuals, as does the ability to focus. The coordination between mind and hand to draw or paint varies. Even the ability to perceive the image in your mind before you give it life varies. Yes, there are skills that can be taught, that give respectable results, but once you get past basic proficiency those with talent will start to rise above.


----------



## Dean_Gretsch (Oct 13, 2020)

zombiesniper said:


> everyone is already an exceptional photographer and every image is a masterpiece. And we know this isn't true.



What?!? What!


----------



## AlanKlein (Oct 13, 2020)

I wouldn't get too caught up considering yourself an artist.  That's pretty much up to the viewer.  In the meanwhile, just go out and shoot nice pictures that you like.  Then frame and give them to friends and family for their enjoyment.  They'll love you for it more than some stranger stroking your ego telling you you're  a great artist.


----------



## zombiesniper (Oct 13, 2020)

Dean_Gretsch said:


> zombiesniper said:
> 
> 
> > everyone is already an exceptional photographer and every image is a masterpiece. And we know this isn't true.
> ...



I was talking about other photographers. Not you. Now go on and take your next masterpiece!


----------



## charlie76 (Oct 13, 2020)

AlanKlein said:


> I wouldn't get too caught up considering yourself an artist.  That's pretty much up to the viewer.  In the meanwhile, just go out and shoot nice pictures that you like.  Then frame and give them to friends and family for their enjoyment.  They'll love you for it more than some stranger stroking your ego telling you you're  a great artist.



great post, well said


----------



## charlie76 (Oct 13, 2020)

A line should definitely be drawn.  And it should be drawn WAY before “performance art”. On my god is that hard to watch


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 14, 2020)

AlanKlein said:


> I wouldn't get too caught up considering yourself an artist.  That's pretty much up to the viewer.  In the meanwhile, just go out and shoot nice pictures that you like.  Then frame and give them to friends and family for their enjoyment.  They'll love you for it more than some stranger stroking your ego telling you you're  a great artist.



I suspect the OP was not meant to encompass all photography. Obviously there has to be a distinction. I take a lot of snapshots, that never see post processing, they're memories of moments in time, family, friends, places we visit. I also do photography that's meant to create an art work, which has considerably more thought involved in the process and editing. While as you said the viewer determines the art worthiness, the artist has to first create something to view, be it an accidental snapshot, that by chance captures the emotion or tells the story of the moment or a planned composition.


----------



## mrca (Oct 14, 2020)

Because I said so.


----------



## Pixeldawg1 (Oct 14, 2020)

I mostly agree with this, but in my classes, when we discuss "the rules", I explain to my students that these are "time-tested", but that there was a time previous to these rules that people who created art really had no rules- cave drawings for example are just a series of works bunched together with no real compositional rules guiding them, but we still consider them to be "Art". So, it's good to know what the rules are when appropriate, but also OK to envision your creation in a way that breaks these rules as well. This to me, is all about the creative process and allows the free expression that we all desire to have in our work. Just my $0.02.

Be well, one and all,

Mark


----------



## C. M (Oct 14, 2020)

Pixeldawg1 said:


> I mostly agree with this, but in my classes, when we discuss "the rules", I explain to my students that these are "time-tested", but that there was a time previous to these rules that people who created art really had no rules- cave drawings for example are just a series of works bunched together with no real compositional rules guiding them, but we still consider them to be "Art". So, it's good to know what the rules are when appropriate, but also OK to envision your creation in a way that breaks these rules as well. This to me, is all about the creative process and allows the free expression that we all desire to have in our work. Just my $0.02.
> 
> Be well, one and all,
> 
> Mark


if you dig through common/standard lists of "the best or greatest photographs of decase x" youll see that MORE photographs on those lists DO NOT FOLLOW ANY OF THE so called RULES of photography"

And to many of these "rules" contradict each other in ways that a person just says screw it and goes and plays with a yarn ball


----------



## Pixeldawg1 (Oct 15, 2020)

[QUOTE="C. M, post: [/QUOTE]
if you dig through common/standard lists of "the best or greatest photographs of decase x" youll see that MORE photographs on those lists DO NOT FOLLOW ANY OF THE so called RULES of photography"

And to many of these "rules" contradict each other in ways that a person just says screw it and goes and plays with a yarn ball[/QUOTE]

Hmmm. In reading MY post, it doesn't seem too clear that I am telling my students to break the rules. Use them as a guide, but if you have a better way, do it.


----------



## Overread (Oct 15, 2020)

The key is that if you understand teh reasoning behind why a rule works then you understand the visual language being used. If you understand that then you can change how you communicate with your photo. "Breaking" a rule by doing the opposite doesn't mean you're breaking things, it might well mean that you're simply saying the opposite which in itself is likely a theory/rule of artistic creation. 

Or might be a combination of two or three or more other theories being used in tandem.


----------



## Dean_Gretsch (Oct 15, 2020)

@Overread To your last point, there used to be a fellow here that did some very interesting portraits of homeless people in the UK. Invariably, the same member would tear them apart for not meeting " technical " standards, yet the freshness of the path he chose really grabbed my attention and I would always argue his case for him. He had his own style, stayed true to it and, at least for me, it worked! He doesn't post often now. I suppose the drama turned him off to TPF. Pity.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 15, 2020)

C. M said:


> Pixeldawg1 said:
> 
> 
> > I mostly agree with this, but in my classes, when we discuss "the rules", I explain to my students that these are "time-tested", but that there was a time previous to these rules that people who created art really had no rules- cave drawings for example are just a series of works bunched together with no real compositional rules guiding them, but we still consider them to be "Art". So, it's good to know what the rules are when appropriate, but also OK to envision your creation in a way that breaks these rules as well. This to me, is all about the creative process and allows the free expression that we all desire to have in our work. Just my $0.02.
> ...



I'd disagree with "Do not follow any" part of your statement. Somewhere within their composition I would bet they've followed a rule or two whether consciously or unconsciously. 

There are some rules rooted in fact that if you break them your composition won't be viewed the way you intended. Color theory is one aspect that comes to mind. Marketing and advertising people are well known for their use of color to elicit a response or mood from the viewer, the subject has been the center of countless studies. IE: If you wanted to show a warm pastoral fall landscape you'd want warm colors (orange, red, yellow), whereas as a cold winter landscape would follow blues. Other things like placement of focal point can lead to the viewer missing the intent of the artist.


----------



## star camera company (Oct 21, 2020)

True Art is “the concealment of effort”,  that quote is from Geraldine Chaplin.


----------



## AlanKlein (Oct 21, 2020)

Aesthetics might have rules; art not necessarily so.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Oct 30, 2020)

I believe this is a bit of over thinking the subject. The best description I have heard is "Art is junk and junk is art" it depends on who is judging.

Bach, Bluegrass and Rap all have large followings, bring in good money to some and most folk could care less about the style the do not like. 

Sounds a lot like photography to me.


----------



## mrca (Oct 31, 2020)

Overread, you are spot on.  Once a photographer knows why he is taking the photo, using his personal choice of how to capture it to maximize that reason is his style and if his not following some arbitrary "rule" it is done for a specific reason.  When I used to compete alot, I would always add a rule violation that contributed to the meaning of the shot to screw with the judges to see if they would score it less because of not blindly following supposed rules.  Since most competitions are judged primarily on technique, not what the image expresses, we see such images scored lower.   Many competitions have no title for images that can give a clue to the makers intent for the image so people can determine if all the elements contribute and support it.


----------



## JoeW (May 16, 2021)

I have a slightly different take.  Of course visual art has rules.  But there are hundreds of them, maybe thousands of them.  And you can't comply with all of them at once.

What makes photography possible as an art is the photographer's deliberate decision as to which rules to use or adhere to.  Do I have a level horizon and shoot in landscape mode?  Or go with a Dutch Tilt?  Or use a portrait mode?    It is those deliberate decisions (which compose a picture) that determines if we're just taking snapshots or making photographs.  And our ability to then make a choice (I want your eye to be drawn to the bright lights so I'm deliberately go to shoot with a background full of bright white orbs.  Or I want your eye to be drawn to the sky so I'm going to compose my sunset shot so 80% of the photo is the sky rather than the foreground) and achieve the look we want with that choice is what makes it art.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (May 17, 2021)

I think the "rules" of photography are a collection of things that have shown themselves to be the most appealing to the majority (not all) of the viewers. So photographer use them as guide when taking photos.  There is also a certain amount of popular fads mixed in.

The harsh truth is that, you do not get to decide if you are a good photographer, your audience does.


----------



## mrca (May 17, 2021)

Ron, I disagree, most of the audience doesn't have a clue about excellent photography or art.  You ARE a good photographer based on what you produce whether or not the masses like it or not.    You may be CONSIDERED a good photographer by the masses, who generally have little photo or art knowledge yet be a terrible or one trick pony photographer.   Like Joe mentions, tilting was a fad done without purpose other than to do it.  Same with blurring, excessive warming or saturation, bokeh.   All valid techniques, but when not appropriate for the image, it is crap.   I don't think "rules" ie guidelines are created by the masses, they rarely  know why they like something, but painters through the centuries and photographers for 160 years have noted them.   The only thing the audience determines is if they like or buy your work.   Sorry, the reality is if you are putting great work out there it is casting your pearls among swine.  If you let the mob tell you if your are good or not, you are setting yourself up for disappointment and instead of concentrating on creating great work, you will only chase approval.   Who was that recent painter who couldn't paint without a cliched warm light coming through a window.  He made a fortune.  I'd  rather have a velvet Elvis.


----------



## jcdeboever (May 17, 2021)

I have no clue. I am happy to be able to press the shutter. I have zero deep thoughts anymore. I am a robot with a camera who gets a thrill by various shutter sounds. I get all warm and fuzzy from the sound of a mirror slap produced by a Zenza Bronica S2A


----------



## Scott Whaley (May 17, 2021)

Pixeldawg1 said:


> I mostly agree with this, but in my classes, when we discuss "the rules", I explain to my students that these are "time-tested", but that there was a time previous to these rules that people who created art really had no rules- cave drawings for example are just a series of works bunched together with no real compositional rules guiding them, but we still consider them to be "Art". So, it's good to know what the rules are when appropriate, but also OK to envision your creation in a way that breaks these rules as well. This to me, is all about the creative process and allows the free expression that we all desire to have in our work. Just my $0.02.
> 
> Be well, one and all,
> 
> Mark


I think of "Cave Art" as prehistoric graffiti.  Can you imagine what people 2,000 years from now are going to think when the uncover a brick wall in the Hood with Graffiti on it?


----------



## mrca (May 17, 2021)

JC, think that has a great sound,  try 1 more cm with a rb67.  Pull a dark slide, cock mirror, advance shutter,  manually focus with reversed waist level finder.  Push shutter, Kalunk, repeat.  Don't worry, If I recall, you can find deep thoughts from Jack Handey on old  SNL episodes.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (May 17, 2021)

mrca, I certainly do agree that the "masses" do not know much about what makes a good picture. However, even the best photographers do not always agree on what is a good photograph.

As you mentioned there are many electronic enhancing features available today, whether there usage is a brilliant display of creative talent or just plane crap; is, has been and always will be subjective.        

At the root of the the Ops question, is the fact that there is no law that says you must use this or that photographic rule or you will be throw in jail until to do.  Like most things, the rules are economically  driven; i.e. this sells, but that does not. A job that you are not "dependent" on for all or part of your living, is basically a hobby, even if it brings in some cash.  

In the USA you are free to starve in the occupation of your choice, You may be among the the top 100 best stagecoach drivers in the land but I would not advise it as a career choice.

I have always loved to play banjo, but as they say, I never quit my day job.


----------



## Soocom1 (May 17, 2021)

To a point I agree, but then also disagree with some of it.

The cave drawing aspect is IMO a bit of a fallacy. Study many of the cave drawings in places like France and India and you will see rules of perspective engaged, and in some instances distribution, rules of thirds, etc.  Were they written? Who knows. Maybe they were, maybe not.

Gobekli Teplie which is a favorite of the Ancient Alien bunch has on it reliefs of animals that fall well into proportion. But that was done some say as far back as 12,000 years!  (Look at medieval drawings and tell me about perspective!)  That bunch was HARD on rules, but art was secondary to the memes of the day as it were. (Mostly trying to survive plagues and the occasional sieges.)

But the rules are not designed to be absolutes. They are there as guidance to make an art piece something understandable an enjoyable.
The whole Andy Warhol thing was designed to challenge those ideas and in some cases worked, but even ol Andy did things that followed basic rules.

Petroglyphs of the SW US have many multiple drawings carved in rock that also follow some basic rules.  Art is successful to the beholder. The artist can be looked upon as a worthless drugged out wannabe or a master to be remembered for all time. 
So to me the rules are in my opinion guidelines to help create, not absolute that can never be broken.


----------



## mrca (May 17, 2021)

I like McNally's  quote referring to Pirates of the Carribean where the girl comes on board the pirate ship under the Rules of Parlay, like a white flag but the Captain tell his men to toss her over board and she says he can't harm her under the Rules of Parlay and he says, they aren't really rules, more like guidelines.  Want to get more "keepers?"    You can be the blind squirrel and just shooting away hoping to find an occasional acorn, or you can learn the guidelines, but  only use what fits YOUR VISION.   I like the words of a successful, accomplished member of PPA, I don't care if they like it, so long as they BUY it.    I would add, and be true to your vision.   And there is more to photography than "following the rules."  I have judged  competitions and  often times they are judged on following the rules.   But it takes much more to make a great image.  McDonalds workers follow the Mcdonalds rules to the letter but do they make gourmet  food?  Never.  But go to a restaurant with a gifted chef who will chose fresh local ingredients, carefully combine flavors, textures, colors to create a work of art out of basic ingredients understands some  guidelines but relying on his vision, his creativity.    That is food as an art form.  Same applies to photography.   Now, everyone wont appreciate what he has done, but his heart and mind is in the dish.  Cartier Bresson said a great image results when the eye, the mind and the heart come together to produce the image.   He said nothing about rules.  But not everyone is trying to make art, they may be just documenting a moment.  Sorry, but aping what is in front of a camera can be done without you there.  Most of the images we are deluged with do only that.  A camera can't have something to say then craft an image that powerfully conveys that message.  Someone who can do that consistently is a great photographer.    Why is Steiglitz one of my favorite photographers?  When the NY Camera club guys told him his photo wasn't sharp (you know a rule even in 1900) he told them :it isn't supposed to be.  No one remembers the camera club guys.


----------



## flyingPhoto (May 30, 2021)

Montaigne had good thoughts on the rules of proportion used by children drawing oversized body parts when they drew graphiti on the castle walls..

Rules can be better looked at as THEORIES of practice. Look at leading lines for instance,  we all know we can use a leading line inside a photograph to draw the viewers eyes to what we want them to look at most. 
  Say a model holding a candle to her chin to put the viewers gaze at her lipstick instead of her low cut dress.  

But following the rules cannot make a bad photograph better. Read about all the nude photos of women on random train tracks. Sure they use leading lines, but the photo itself is CRAP because the whole setting and combination has no purpose.

But if the image is meant to be pleasing, it needs to meet requirements of the target audience. Poster for 5 year old girls? basket of kittens please..

Poster to make a target group of people vomit in their lunch? a picture of their favorite meal surrounded by aborted fetus' will do the trick nicely.


----------

