Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (
More info?)
Mike Henley wrote:
> Tony wrote:
>
>>Art IS breaking the rules. If you live within them you make
>
> decortions. That
>
>>may mean nothing to you but an artist will understand it
>
> intrinsically -
>
>>which is why the history of art is littered with hacks who stuck to
>
> the
>
>>rules and only made "acceptable" art. They made the safe and sure and
>
> are
>
>>largely forgotten. The innovators - the crazy people who broke the
>
> rules are
>
>>the people we remember now - van Gogh, Matisse, Picasso, da Vinci,
>
> etc. The
>
>>people who created, as opposed to the people who just worked the
>
> trade. The
>
>>hacks and their acolates laughed at the Impressionists, called the
>
> Cubists
>
>>psychotic, etc etc etc. Listen to a concerto by Scalieri, Mozart's
>
> more
>
>>successful rival in Vienna. There is much knowledge of the rules in
>
> his
>
>>composition, but nothing to remember.
>> 95 percent of all art is hackwork. Those are the rule followers.
>
>
> You evidently know the history of art, so yes, from someone like you, I
> would agree with the notion that "Art IS breaking the rules", given
> that i know what you mean. Though I would perhaps prefer it had you
> used a term such as "advancing" or "redefining" rather than breaking;
> for those artistic innovators, they knew the rules too well, that they
> knew their place in history and their limitations, and they worked
> beyond them, each triggering a movement in his wake. What I have a
> problem with is the new bastardized version of "Art is breaking the
> rules" that refuses the notion that art is a discipline, and whose idea
> of "art" is random pretentious nonsense, you know, the 'artsy fartsy'
> crowd.
>
> With regard to the innovators, I personally think a key feature that
> set them apart from the '95% tradesmen' was that they were the masters
> of their own aesthetic universe and they did what pleased their
> sensibilities, rather than the '95% hacks' who generally worked
> according to the rules and tastes of others.
>
There is a fine line between what is considered art and what is
considered trash and rules have a great deal to do with creative
acceptance. IMOP, those who tend to think esoterically may oftentimes be
confused as to not recognizing a rule is being applied in support of a
technique which is being born. Oh, to burst self-made images of
sophistication.
Begin at the beginning; what is art.
Art is defined and accepted as being works of human creativity. One of
the recognized branches of art encompass, music, dance, literature, and
painting. There are rules in each of these categories.
Dance: The rule of dance is rhythm. The rule of Intervals in a which
recurring sequence of events take place.
Music: The rule of music is the musical scale. Within the use of the
musical scale is the rule time.
Literature: The rule of literature is governed by style, requiring a
subject.
Painting: An action of applying paint to a surface. The rule of painting
may be seen in technique and subject form.
No thanks. Rules apply. To think they don't is indeed foolish.
nick
>
>
>>--
>>http
/www.chapelhillnoir.com
>> home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
>> The Improved Links Pages are at
>>
http/www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
>> A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
>>http
/www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
>>
>>"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in
>
> message
>
>>news:Xns95CE80992F064klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
>>
>>>"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in news:S6nAd.77$uc.40972
>>>@twister.southeast.rr.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>> There is not art without breaking the rules.
>>>
>>>Sounds nice - but means nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>>/Roland
>
>
Facebook
Twitter