Posted by on Apr 27, 2013 in Blog | 0 comments

As the title sug­gests this is my think­ing on the sub­ject: rules in art. Should there be any?

In all kinds of art there are cer­tain rules. So in pho­tog­ra­phy there are many rules regard­ing the tech­ni­cal details in the image. The rules of com­po­si­tion, sharp­ness, expo­sure time,  light­ing, col­ors, etc. What if I cre­ate an image that is total­ly tech­ni­cal­ly incor­rect but still wakes up some emo­tions in observers and they still like it? Is that pho­to a waste or still can be con­sid­ered art? Look at those two pic­tures below and think are those total waste or do you like them. I like them and I’m cer­tain that I can find at least 50 more peo­ple who will too. So is it art?


What about Lomog­ra­phy for exam­ple? It began with a fate­ful encounter in the ear­ly 1990s, when a group of stu­dents in Vien­na, Aus­tria, stum­bled upon the Lomo Kom­pakt Automat – a small, enig­mat­ic Russ­ian cam­era which was made of plas­tic and made poor­ly. Lomo cam­eras were so poor­ly made ​​so light leak often hap­pened from the side of the lens or the cam­era body. Those cam­eras pro­duced over­sat­u­rat­ed col­ors, extreme opti­cal dis­tor­tions, rain­bow-col­ored sub­jects, off-kil­ter expo­sure, blur­ring and alter­na­tive film pro­cess­ing, all things usu­al­ly con­sid­ered bad in pho­tog­ra­phy. Those stu­dents were astound­ed with the mind­blow­ing pho­tos that those cam­eras pro­duced so upon return­ing home, friends want­ed their own Lomo LC-A, ignit­ing a new style of artis­tic exper­i­men­tal pho­tog­ra­phy that we now know as Lomog­ra­phy. So we have tech­ni­cal­ly incor­rect pho­tos on one side and on the oth­er a bunch of peo­ple who like that sort of pho­tog­ra­phy. So what about that?

What about Picas­so? Many of his paint­ings from the peri­od of Cubism I per­son­al­ly do not like and find them non­sense. Like this one for exam­ple: 


I know…Many of you will say: “Are you crazy?! Its Picas­so for cry­ing out loud!” So what? I don’t like it but many are will­ing to give a lot of mon­ey for his paint­ings. Many con­nois­seurs will now say that he was a great expert in his field and I respect that. But he was one of the founders of Cubism and one of those who have defined the rules for this paint­ing style. Which means that the peo­ple them­selves impose mean­ing­less rules in art.

My opin­ion is that any rules should not exist in the art. Art is some­thing that we cre­ate from the heart, art is emo­tion, and there­fore should not be lim­it­ed by the rules. To me it’s mean­ing­less.

What do you think? I would love to hear what vis­i­tors of my site have to say about this top­ic!