True enough, beauty is an elusive concept. Trying to distill it into its constituent parts is a futile endeavour like counting the grains of sand on a beach. But in a world governed by a host of arbitrary laws a set of universal standards must be maintained. Consider that if a skirt-chasing young gallant loses himself in the curves of some pretty ankles one minute before the hour of her sixteenth birthday he's railroaded out of town as a depraved child molester and to prison he shall go. But if he tumbles her on the bed a minute after the clock strikes midnight the law is perfectly cool with that. What has changed in sixty seconds? Arbitrary laws.
The same principle holds true for art.
You’re talking bollocks mate. Dull, grey, stuffy, prudish, traditionalist nonsense, and I can’t decide if it suits you or not. I don’t think I’ve ever run across anyone of your obvious astuteness and (apparently) a love of art talking about the importance of rules and boundaries to the medium. What in the blueberry fuckmuffin were you thinking when you typed this? I can’t tell you how disappointed I am in you.
Do you think Vincent van Vogh would have been impressed with this little chit?
I think he’d love it. He is one of the founding fathers of modern art, mixed media and Expressionism. I think he'd applaud renegade art and relish the deeper, essential truths that artists like Banksy reveal - the relevance, symbolism, satire, and scathing cultural and political commentary, if not the the aesthetic value.
"Do not quench your inspiration and your imagination. Do not become the slave of your model."~ Vincent van GoghIf Van Gogh was alive today and had to sit and listen to you arty-farty fuckers in the conservative camp, talking about the merits of a rigid aproach to art and lamenting the declining standard, he'd shoot himself again.