Landscapes

Abstract art isn't just a random mess, and there are two schools of thought on how this works. One is that everything is random anyway, so something abstract is just as clear of a picture of a landscape. The second, and the one that seems more correct, is that someone must first learn to create something non-abstract (like that landscape), because once they have learned the rules for creating something, they now know better how to break those rules. How can someone draw a picture of a feeling if they don't know what not to include?

If someone isn't talented enough to paint a decent landscape, their ability, in some ways, will be lessened in other fields of visual art. I know everyone reading this is going to say that art is art and there are no rules. Yeah right. That is too easy of an argument, and there is too much bad art out there for me to agree with that. Someone has to learn the rules before they can know how to break them. Just ask Rabo Karabekian.

No matter what you are creating--a building in Fort Collins, or a noise-rock song--there are some rules and guidelines that will be there. Even an abstract expressionist had to know what kinds of paint would best suit their needs--or which paint would do the opposite if they so desired. The basic point of all this is to say that art and creativity are both benefited by knowledge.