Seeing the recent outbreak of incidents all over the world that seem to completely ignore the rules, I felt like thinking about the rules again. However, in the end, this article ended up being more of a self-affirmation.
There are always rules in the world, and even when we try to recognize this obvious fact, sometimes only the negative restrictive aspects tend to be emphasized. However, when we look again, there are actually many rules that work in a positive direction, and one example would be the rules in sports. The application of rules in the world of sports is particularly strict, because the purpose of the rules is to restrict things, and to make the viewer see fine plays that transcend those restrictions. I think this is one example of transcending the restrictions created by rules into liberation. I have always thought that this kind of expression structure is always involved somewhere in the basic world of expression.
Now, if we shift our perspective to the world of art, the world of painting, where I practice, is also made up of many rules. The rules state that it is a visual expression world, that most of it is drawn on flat surfaces, and that ultimately it is a form of expression through drawing. If these rules are settled and institutionalized, they will become the general image of rules for painting that is circulated in society. (However, paintings that deviate from this image have become common recently, and the current situation is that they cannot be captured by the conventional view of painting.) And what we can see here is that the world of painting exists as something more relaxed, unlike the strict and unshakable rules in sports. However, if the position that expressions cannot be clearly manifested without regulating rules is the same as in sports, then we come to a simple question: why aren't the rules of art more strict like sports? In fact, I think that this is the essence of art.
If you think that art is essentially about freedom (I do), it would be very problematic if rules, even if they are only for the moment, ultimately work to hinder freedom. When rules are necessary, the artist's consent must be a prerequisite, and if that is not possible, new rules must be created to satisfy the artist. I think the basic idea of rules in art is that they are not given to you by others, but are set by you and you take full responsibility for them. Therefore, the creative process begins at the stage of setting the rules, and the rules are actively incorporated as part of the world of expression, and the rules and expression must exist in a sense of unity that is accompanied by necessity. If this is not working well, the value of the rules will not be evaluated, no matter how innovative they may seem. There was a time in the past when an expression was evaluated simply by presenting the novelty of the rules, but now we are in an era where the relationship between the "rules" and the "expressed thing" is close to necessity. I think that it is not just the immediate novelty that is being questioned, but the "quality of the innovation" that is always being questioned.
Now, the purpose of sports rules is to define the world by absolutely regulating it, so players are expected to absolutely obey (changing the rules is absolutely not permitted). This is the difference between art and sports. In the world of art, such a fixed view of rules is far too restrictive.
But still, rules always come along with art. This is not just about art, but as long as we are human beings, we cannot live in society without being detached from rules. If that is the case, it seems to me to be a natural flow of thought to maintain those rules and actively use them as a means to move towards "freedom" and overcome "constraints."
Even if we extend these thoughts about rules to the larger idea of "institutions in society," the basic structure will not change. In that case, even if art seems to be a field in a social institution, it may try to transcend that framework (while still maintaining that framework somewhere), but may also try to set its own new framework without relying on it. No matter when, art will always find a place for its creation through its own efforts, even if it is not given a form from the outside, and even if it seems to be restricted by rules, it will continue to want to place itself in a place of freedom. Is this the true meaning of the oft-used phrase "enter the mold and break out of it"?
Comments