Are there any "rules of art" much like we have "rules of photography" but which conflict with each other? Or are rules of art (generically defined) always compatible with rules of photography?

In other words, I see the use of the rule of thirds in more than just photography. And along those lines things that make photos interesting like texture and use of color also make non-photographic art interesting.

Thoughts? I know some of you went to school for this.

My guess is that the generic rules of art are all applicable to photography.

The more I thought about it the more stupid my question felt to me. So how bout them Dodgers?

Trevor,

Yeah, I got a sheepskin that reminds me I went to school, but dat don't mean I learned nuthin'... :D

To be honest, to truely answer you're question, I'd have to do too much thinking. By that I mean hours of analyzing and compare/contrast kind of stuff. Photography and art in general are to me much more emotional than analytical...

What I can tell you is that one of my greatest discoveries as a photo artist was the direct parallel between creating photographic art and ANY other artistic medium. IOW, the similarities to painting, sculpture, printmaking, glasswork, etc., etc., etc., are much greater than the differences.

If you choose to downplay the technical aspects of photography (which actually can become second nature once you're experienced enough), your previsualizing, mental approach, and workflow can be very mucht the same.

Like other media, the tools of photography become a means to an end, and the distinctions between the types of artwork begin to blur...

Hmmm, maybe I answered your question after all... ;)

Nice post Steve.

Are there any "rules of art" much like we have "rules of photography" but which conflict with each other? Or are rules of art (generically defined) always compatible with rules of photography?

In other words, I see the use of the rule of thirds in more than just photography. And along those lines things that make photos interesting like texture and use of color also make non-photographic art interesting.

Thoughts? I know some of you went to school for this.

My guess is that the generic rules of art are all applicable to photography.
Those are rules of composition which are valid for all the arts.
There are some 'rules' like "Expose for the highlights and let the shadows fall where they may" that are more specific to the photographic medium.
Some uses of complementary and contrasting color especially in local situations within the scene may be harder to apply successfully in photography but would certainly be valid if used.

...that rules are made to be broken. One can compose and create by all the "rules," then find that the most interesting frame on the roll [assuming 35mm film] is that last frame where you shot the camera without aiming or focusing to kill the roll and put in the next.... or, it was slide film, and the image is only on half the frame and the color is all off and half exposed.... you know what I mean.

For a comparison less obscure - I guess - look at the amazing composition of a Renaissance painting, or an old master, then.... there's Jackson Pollock. Both paintings are art, high art, yet - completely, utterly different... and Pollock broke all the rules.

Megan

My minor in college was Art/Photography, and the thing I will always remember from that time was a poster that was displayed in the photo labs.
It was a photograph by Jim Stone.
It was of some dominos layed out to spell, "Art is Anything You Can Get Away With".
That help? Maybe bring you a chuckle?
Brian
:p :D :rolleyes: ;)

Definitely a chuckle! Good one!

It's kind of true though - look at - darn, forgot his name. He did the big tacky sculpture of Cicciolina and himself on a rock rather *involved* with each other. And managed to sell this cr - art - for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

<sigh>

I'd be happy with a few HUNDRED dollars.

Megan