Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Test Subject
Original Poster
#1 Old 14th Jun 2009 at 6:39 AM
Default "Art has Rules"
This is my first debate..
But you know when people look at your art, then say, "You broke so many rules in art!" I think it is actually pretty stupid, for one, who the f*ck said that there were rules in art? 2nd, most of them are TEACHERS.

:D
Advertisement
Scholar
#2 Old 14th Jun 2009 at 8:52 AM
One: Rephrase what you said. First state what we're debating about. I'm guessing "What is art"? And then you give your opinion.

Example:

Quote:
Do you believe that there should be rules to dictate what art is or isn't?

My Opinion: No. BlahBlahBlah


Two: Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and I for one do not think the majority of Modern "Art" is art at all.
Theorist
#3 Old 14th Jun 2009 at 4:11 PM
Quote: Originally posted by DeathGAWD
This is my first debate..
But you know when people look at your art, then say, "You broke so many rules in art!" I think it is actually pretty stupid, for one, who the f*ck said that there were rules in art? 2nd, most of them are TEACHERS.

Breaking the rules in art usually works best by knowing the rules and definitions of art, exhibiting that you can follow them, and then breaking them selectively with an eye to explaining how and what you did when you're in a scholastic environment.

That's straight up from when I've ran a class in the past. If no one knows you're breaking the conventions on purpose then you just look like you're communicating poorly, and communication is the purpose of art (in the most general terms.)
Mad Poster
#4 Old 14th Jun 2009 at 4:42 PM
I don't think art has rules. Every artist has his own world in his head with his rules. His rules are his style. Whatever style you think is right that is your rule. Who was judging Picasso for his arts? iF you wanna think realistically he broke so many rules because his humans look so weird. No. He did not break anything. It is how he liked it and how he saw his world.
Banned
#5 Old 14th Jun 2009 at 7:45 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Kusama
Anime can not be art (not cartoon style - actual drawings and paintings) - it's plagiarism, copy, cliche.


Hate to break it to you but most Manga(the paper form of Anime) isn't plagiarism, the great majority of manga that I have seen and own myself are original works. Yes manga writers like to use the same characters but that's hardly plagiarism. Also, if you're saying it's plagiarism for any other reason then any and all art is plagiarism since many artists copy or at least imitate what they've seen before.
Field Researcher
#6 Old 14th Jun 2009 at 8:04 PM
It would be... incorrect to say art doesn't have rules. There are some rules, as stated as to proportions, lighting, etc. However, once you learn said rules, or more precisely, techniques, you can always break them.
Even Picasso learnt the basic techniques of art, and he did realistic drawings and others, even though he is most known for his cubist period.
Scholar
#7 Old 14th Jun 2009 at 8:08 PM
Art has conventions and techniques, not rules. Big difference.

.:Kitty Klan:.
Visit for Sims 3 Hair, Tattoos, and other free custom content downloads.

.For website updates, subscribe to my RSS feed at.
Dreamwidth Blog
Instructor
#8 Old 15th Jun 2009 at 4:17 PM
\Aparently you can make a messy room and it's art/

“When you're taught to love everyone, to love your enemies, then what value does that place on love?”-Marilyn Manson
Lab Assistant
#9 Old 15th Jun 2009 at 6:35 PM
When people say they've broken the rules of art, they mean they've broken the conventions. For example, the impressionists marked a move away from the realism that was a feature of much of Western art at the time, and so could have been said to have "broken the rules".
Field Researcher
#10 Old 15th Jun 2009 at 7:14 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Eliyana
It would be... incorrect to say art doesn't have rules. There are some rules, as stated as to proportions, lighting, etc. However, once you learn said rules, or more precisely, techniques, you can always break them.
Even Picasso learnt the basic techniques of art, and he did realistic drawings and others, even though he is most known for his cubist period.


Precisely. What appears to be ruffling people to the notion of rules in art is the modern connotation of "rules". Folks today so often hear "rules" and bristle at the word because they envision hard and fast absolutes. They picture things carved in stone. Many rules are softer and have exceptions. But you have to know the rule first so you can know how and where to work around them.

So in that sense, you're darn right art has rules. If it didn't, how could the real visionaries and masters become such by working around them or otherwise rewriting them? It may, in modern terms, be more comfortable to call them "conventions" or "techniques" or something less authoritarian-sounding. But they are the rules just the same.
Mad Poster
#11 Old 16th Jun 2009 at 3:10 AM
Yes there are basic rules of art. Such as how to draw poses, anatomy, landscape and blah blah. Once you know them( or at least have an idea) then you are free to do what you want.
Lab Assistant
#12 Old 16th Jun 2009 at 6:06 PM
Quote: Originally posted by KyleTheArtist
Yes there are basic rules of art. Such as how to draw poses, anatomy, landscape and blah blah. Once you know them( or at least have an idea) then you are free to do what you want.

Well, not so much.
Take this:

This doesn't conform to any of the rules of classical art, yet it's clearly an amazing piece.
I'm aware Picasso was an accomplished classical artist, but are you saying that if cubism was the only thing he could do, and he had no grasp of how to realistically draw poses and landscapes, then Guernica wouldn't be art?
Instructor
#13 Old 16th Jun 2009 at 6:57 PM
Guernica is the anti-war art piece, in which humans turn into animals and murder people. If that is not art, if anime and manga are not art, then what is art? Some would even argue that nudity is not art and want the statue of David banned.

God, please protect me from your idiot followers for they have blinded themselves with bleach.

Money doesn't buy you happiness but it buys you beer and coffee.

Life is like Go. Its takes smart and amoral people to make decisions based on their strategies of living.
Mad Poster
#14 Old 16th Jun 2009 at 9:23 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Splurgy
Well, not so much.
Take this:
This doesn't conform to any of the rules of classical art, yet it's clearly an amazing piece.
I'm aware Picasso was an accomplished classical artist, but are you saying that if cubism was the only thing he could do, and he had no grasp of how to realistically draw poses and landscapes, then Guernica wouldn't be art?


To draw that he had to learn the basics. Every artist did. After that world is your. you think humans have big heads small legs? GO ahead. Every artist has different world and they all see it differently.
Theorist
#15 Old 16th Jun 2009 at 9:40 PM
Quote:
are you saying that if cubism was the only thing he could do, and he had no grasp of how to realistically draw poses and landscapes, then Guernica wouldn't be art?

I'm saying that if Picasso didn't understand and make himself fluent in classical art he A) Could not have made Guerrica, which attains much of its power by twisting classical tropes and influences B) would have had a hard time explaining why cubism was important as art, rather than simply as "something pretty."
Scholar
#16 Old 17th Jun 2009 at 3:56 AM
Quote: Originally posted by cappyboy
Precisely. What appears to be ruffling people to the notion of rules in art is the modern connotation of "rules". Folks today so often hear "rules" and bristle at the word because they envision hard and fast absolutes. They picture things carved in stone. Many rules are softer and have exceptions. But you have to know the rule first so you can know how and where to work around them.

So in that sense, you're darn right art has rules. If it didn't, how could the real visionaries and masters become such by working around them or otherwise rewriting them? It may, in modern terms, be more comfortable to call them "conventions" or "techniques" or something less authoritarian-sounding. But they are the rules just the same.


I disagree.

Aside from the implied rigidity of the word "rules," it also has an implied immutability. But art isn't an immutable practice. Art reflects society. It changes over time, in reaction and reflection to the cultural and philosophical attitudes of the day. Which is why a word like "conventions" more neatly describes what is meant by "rules" in art.




And since it's come up in this thread, I'd personally consider anime art. Though I wouldn't necessarily consider it good art or original art unless the artist actually tries to push the envelope on it.

.:Kitty Klan:.
Visit for Sims 3 Hair, Tattoos, and other free custom content downloads.

.For website updates, subscribe to my RSS feed at.
Dreamwidth Blog
Field Researcher
#17 Old 17th Jun 2009 at 6:47 AM
Art is just like music.

Others have different art tastes. Some hate the Mona Lisa and like other forms of art. Everyone has their own taste and preferences in art.
Field Researcher
#18 Old 17th Jun 2009 at 8:51 AM Last edited by Thrior : 17th Jun 2009 at 12:38 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by KyleTheArtist
I don't think art has rules. Every artist has his own world in his head with his rules. His rules are his style. Whatever style you think is right that is your rule. Who was judging Picasso for his arts? iF you wanna think realistically he broke so many rules because his humans look so weird. No. He did not break anything. It is how he liked it and how he saw his world.

Exactly! It's a matter of taste really, like music. I don't really consider those commercial mainstream bands to be anything more than non-artistic rubbish since they all sound the freaking same but they are still making music (art) and if some like it, then that's fine. I just value a bit different things, I have a different taste, but that doesn't mean my opinion is any more right.
Some art is indeed kept in higher value than the other but when someone draws for example a manga character, in my book it is art. I read manga myself and I have never really liked it that all the characters tend to look the same but I would NEVER start insulting the artist about her "lack of creativity" and yadda yadda. It's still a creative progress. Art should also be an enjoyable hobby. Nobody can tell me what I should draw and in what style. I too draw for fun, I'm not trying to achieve some greater success in the field of art, it's just something I like to do in my freetime. I love drawing characters in a cartoony way and some people think the only real art is realistic. I find that ridiculous. Ever heard of style? Now we came back to this: it really is about taste and personal rules.

There's some restrictions though and it can't always be just about the opinion. You know, there was this one case in Finland. This one disgusting guy called Teemu Mäkinen taped a video 'Sex and Death' where he tortures and kills a cat and then masturbates over it... and he claimed it was art! And the freaking Museum of Contemporary Art Kiasma agreed with him! Non surprisingly, people were totally appalled.
That's not art! That's disgusting and wrong. Art should not cause any physical pain to anyone. If this had been a painting or something, then I would agree that it is art although the concept is sick. We see controversial art all the time and I'm fine with that since art is often a way to awake feelings and discussion. But this... this poor cat was REALLY killed and tortured. No matter what this "artist" thinks, this is not art.
Instructor
#19 Old 17th Jun 2009 at 12:17 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Thrior
Exactly! It's a matter of taste really, like music. I don't really consider those commercial mainstream bands to be anything more than non-artistic rubbish since they all sound the freaking same but they are still making music (art) and if some like it, then that's fine. I just value a bit different things, I have a different taste, but that doesn't mean my opinion is any more right.
Some art is indeed kept in higher value than the other but when someone draws for example a manga character, in my book it is art. I read manga myself and I have never really liked it that all the characters tend to look the same but I would NEVER start insulting the artist about her "lack of creativity" and yadda yadda. It's still a creative progress. Art should also be an enjoyable hobby. Nobody can tell me what I should draw and in what style. I too draw for fun, I'm not trying to achieve some greater success in the field of art, it's just something I like to do in my freetime. I love drawing characters in a cartoony way and some people think the only real art is realistic. I find that ridiculous. Ever heard of style? Now we came back to this: it really is about taste and personal rules.

There's some restrictions though and it can't always be just about the opinion. You know, there was this one case in Finland. This one disgusting guy called Teemu Mäkinen created a video 'Sex and Death' where he tortures and kills a cat and then masturbates over it... and he claimed it was art! And the freaking Museum of Contemporary Art Kiasma agreed with him! Non surprisingly, people were totally appalled.
That's not art! That's disgusting and wrong. Art should not cause any physical pain to anyone. If this had been a painting or something, then I would agree that it is art although the concept is sick. We see controversial art all the time and I'm fine with that since art is often a way to awake feelings and discussion. But this... this poor cat was REALLY killed and tortured. No matter what this "artist" thinks, this is not art.


Animal Cruelty is the different subject but it would not be appropiate if they have pedophilia as art as well as bestial necrophilia on tape. I've seen fan fiction deal with pedophilia but the writer is also the artist. But tapes on the other hand maybe construed as sick porn.

God, please protect me from your idiot followers for they have blinded themselves with bleach.

Money doesn't buy you happiness but it buys you beer and coffee.

Life is like Go. Its takes smart and amoral people to make decisions based on their strategies of living.
Instructor
#20 Old 17th Jun 2009 at 12:29 PM
A friend of mine thought everything that is beautiful is "art". Meaning, a beautiful woman, or a nice sunset on the beach is "art"... which is total bs. No it is not art- you can't just take a word/concept that already exists and make it equal to another word/concept that already exists. You didn't invent the concept of "art" so therefore you can't give it whatever meaning you want. Sure, like "love", it may mean different things to different people but it is still vaguely related to its original idea.
Art has to be something that that has no function other than to exist and be a work of art (which can provoke thoughts, feelings, etc...). The forks and spoons in my kitchen cannot be art by anyone's definition as they are utensils I use everyday, which have their own function and were created with this specific function in mind.
Instructor
#21 Old 17th Jun 2009 at 12:38 PM
Quote: Originally posted by jooxis
A friend of mine thought everything that is beautiful is "art". Meaning, a beautiful woman, or a nice sunset on the beach is "art"... which is total bs. No it is not art- you can't just take a word/concept that already exists and make it equal to another word/concept that already exists. You didn't invent the concept of "art" so therefore you can't give it whatever meaning you want. Sure, like "love", it may mean different things to different people but it is still vaguely related to its original idea.
Art has to be something that that has no function other than to exist and be a work of art (which can provoke thoughts, feelings, etc...). The forks and spoons in my kitchen cannot be art by anyone's definition as they are utensils I use everyday, which have their own function and were created with this specific function in mind.


But still, people put art designs on the utensils as well as on computers. Sure it can be still utensils and computers but if you do that properly, that's one of the art is which you use something with designs on it. But I agree that not everything's beautiful is art.

God, please protect me from your idiot followers for they have blinded themselves with bleach.

Money doesn't buy you happiness but it buys you beer and coffee.

Life is like Go. Its takes smart and amoral people to make decisions based on their strategies of living.
Lab Assistant
#22 Old 17th Jun 2009 at 8:45 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
I'm saying that if Picasso didn't understand and make himself fluent in classical art he A) Could not have made Guerrica, which attains much of its power by twisting classical tropes and influences B) would have had a hard time explaining why cubism was important as art, rather than simply as "something pretty."

Hypothetically, then, if someone had managed to make that picture for the first time without any classical training and couldn't explain it, would it not be art?
This broaches the difficult question: How do you define art?
Alchemist
#23 Old 17th Jun 2009 at 9:58 PM
my question to the statement of " i dont think art has rules " is...
if art has no rules, what makes art, art? and not a sack of jumbled up garbage with absolutely no artistic value to it?

it may not be a welcome idea but im pretty sure there are rules to art. not many, but enough to define that art is art...otherwise, what would be the difference between a photo of feces in a gutter and a photo of a vast, breathtaking mural?
Theorist
#24 Old 18th Jun 2009 at 1:56 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Splurgy
Hypothetically, then, if someone had managed to make that picture for the first time without any classical training and couldn't explain it, would it not be art?

Probably not, barring the further pondering if they'd somehow continued to fill out the rest of Picasso's body of work.

There was an older lady in several of my art classes in college. Some of her stuff could conceivably be construed as interesting as primitive art if she'd ever given any sign that she A) understood what she was doing and explain it B) showed she could do other forms of art (you know, the ones actually assigned) enough that it was clear that she was making a choice to make art that way. I remember sitting down with her and just trying to get her to shade a sphere or even just draw a circle. She couldn't, or wouldn't. N matter how interesting some of her stuff was, it wasn't art in the same sense as Picasso made art.

Art isn't accidental. Even Pollock knew what he was doing, could explain what he was doing, showed thought and consideration about what he was doing that could only come from knowing the and being fluent in the "rules" he was breaking.

An interesting looking rock formation isn't art either, nor is a sunrise. All that lady would have done to get an A in just about every class she did from here to eternity would have been to demonstrate her art came from skill rather than a mental disorder (yeah, she was pretty out there too) but she couldn't. That's no more art than my six year old nieces, maybe less - the niece can shade a circle if asked to (and do I get thanks? No!)
Field Researcher
#25 Old 19th Jun 2009 at 7:59 AM
Quote: Originally posted by jooxis
A friend of mine thought everything that is beautiful is "art". Meaning, a beautiful woman, or a nice sunset on the beach is "art"... which is total bs.

My mother is the same =P. I painted a picture of Grim Reaper with black angel wings and she didn't think it's art because it's so dark and "evil". In her opinion I should draw flowers and kittens and scenery.
 
Page 1 of 2
Back to top