I think it does work like that, Himmler. The rules or principles you've been talking about might not be recognised by artists from different cultures or other times, and yet their creations are still art, and are still considered to be art . The artists in the past who've achieved greatest success are the ones who've pioneered new ways of creating, new ways of showing reality, new ways of thinking. When Picasso left behind the old ways of doing portraiture, etc, and chucking much of what he'd be told and taught, people were at first outraged at his 'strange' looking paintings. Someone once asked of a Van Gough painting (referring to the rich colours and swirling shapes) "What pig painted that?" It seemed really decadent as impressionism was the focus, not realism. Naive art doesn't follow many of the rules of perspective, composition and proportion, but it's fun because of it's simplicity and design focus. In the times to come, new and great art will be done by those who free their minds from everything that's been said and done before and create from imagination and intuition. This is the same for music and literature. It's always changing and evolving into something new. And the same in every other field, including medicine. Once it was a rule to use leeches to suck/drain away poisons in the blood. These days they use antibiotics. Then the experts will decide that antibiotics are actually harmful and use something else. In fact, some alternative healers are saying that already.
It's ok not to like any art because it's not to our taste, but I don't think we can say it's wrong or bad. I've heard people speak disparagingly about abstract art, but it has it's place, purpose and worth. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...and so is art.
|