Breaking the rules of painting?

[Chris Saper]

In representational painting, which is what we are all really about here, there are, in my view, absolutely a set of fundamentals. They involve things like drawing, value behavior, the division of space, harmonious color, light and shadow, and the way the eye moves about the surface. There are fundamentals because there are some basic things inherent in the way we see stuff.

Within that context are a wondrous set of tools at each of our hands: things like contrast, saturation, hue, temperature, shape, line, edge management, texture...that allow for an infinite number of variations.

When a painter decides to use the tools at hand, (presuming he or she has some measure of control over them) to move outside the variations that comprise the norm, more power to them. Sometimes the painting will still "look good', sometimes it will fail. (Sort of like what can happen even if you stay within the variations.)

So break any rule that you would like, flaunt variation. If it works, it will be evident. If it fails, it will be evident, too. The big difference in understanding the fundmentals, is that if your painting fails, you will at least have some basis for knowing WHY...and if you wish, you can avoid repeating the mistake next time.

Break all the "rules' you want...you will enoy all the consequences, good or bad. My point is, it's far better to understand the fundamentals first.

So when I offer a critique, I am absolutely going to go with what I see as the fundamentals, the basics, where going with the odds will tend to serve one better than not. What the recipient chooses to do with all this is no longer in my domain.