I have always been fascinated by rule followers - perhaps because I was never naturally inclined to be one; my parents and teachers could attest to that. I’ve wondered about the nature of a mind that consistently accepts a rule without understanding the reasoning behind it, or worse, who accepts a rule simply because authority figure gave it. How can a person be satisfied doing something without understanding why exactly they are doing it?
Of course, I learned through the trials of childhood and adolescence that obedience can be rational even a rule isn’t yet understood or justified. There is nothing wrong with temporarily accepting guidance from someone who has earned the right to be trusted, or adhering to guidance until one is capable of deciding for themself.
The problem arises when a person treats rules as substitutes for judgment. Or, put more plainly, when a person replaces their thinking with rule following. I have noticed people who seem to move through life in a daze with rules as their only real method of decision-making: uncertain without them, defensive when asked to explain them, paralyzed when they encounter a situation the rule does not address.
This isn’t to say that respecting and following rules is bad and to be avoided - I am no anarchist. But a person who cannot identify why they act as they do has surrendered the responsibility of thinking to whoever supplied the instruction. For that reason, I see blind rule acceptance as a limiting mental habit in all areas of life, including the practice of painting. Isn’t it fascinating how a principle for living life transfers directly to painting? This is true for many other principles, and I will write more on that someday.
When rules replace understanding
In my other essays I talk about the importance of developing systems of thinking that improve your painting practice. The purpose of this essay is to share my perspective on how to approach rules broadly, how to use them to your advantage, and when to apply them. I’ve seen many students latch onto rules simply because they heard them from a better painter. I’ve done this myself, and I’m not saying it’s always a bad thing to do. Rather, your thinking shouldn’t stop when you hear a rule from someone you look up to - you should seek to understand exactly why it exists, specifically how and when to apply it, and what results does the rule produce.
Painting is at its core causal by nature. Your decisions (causes) produce results (effects) - being aware of the cause and effect relationships in your work is necessary for success when painting.
Rules appear everywhere, especially in the practice of representational painting. Realism (as a broad category) does have principles that can be studied, errors that can be identified, and better or worse ways of achieving a particular visual effect. These qualities are why I prefer realism over pure abstract expressionism (or bananas taped to walls). However this can produce a series of formulas and rules that can, ironically, cause your paintings to fail.
Not all rules are equal. A rule such as fat over lean is a material rule that describes a material consequence: oil-paint layers placed in a certain order are less likely to crack over time. For the sake of this essay I’ll be talking about visual rules rather than material rules (though both are worth understanding).
Visual rules are typically formulas that are used in place of observation, reasoning, and judgment. Some common examples include:
“Warm light, cool shadows.”
“Never use black.”
“Never use tube greens.”
“Warm colors advance; cool colors recede.”
“Never put the focal point in the center.”
“Use a limited palette.”
“Only paint from life.”
“Never use pure white.”
Most painting rules begin as attempts to correct a common beginner mistake.
Beginners naturally want certainty:
“If I follow the correct procedure, I will avoid making mistakes.”
Teachers often compress a nuanced explanation into an easy to remember sentence.
The sentence is repeated; the context is lost. Rules get repeated as absolutes rather than understood as conditional observations.
Over time, repeating the right rules (now dogmas) can feel like understanding painting, especially if following the rule produces results the student is happy with.
The result:
Students learn the appearance of an answer without understanding the visual cause behind it.
They begin to paint according to what they have heard rather than what they see. The rule replaces their observation, reasoning, and judgement
Blindly following rules can quickly stunt a students ability to develop their own visual language. A student learns which colors and brands of paint to use, which compositions are allowed, what color and value relationships should be, etc. In doing so, they could be producing paintings that look good - all while being completely unable to explain why the choices work, or unable to make different choices when a subject demands it.
I am not advocating for ignoring all rules. A painter should learn as much as possible from the observations, methods, and technical knowledge of artists who came before them. But every rule should be treated as a conditional tool that has a purpose. Ask questions like:
What mistake does it correct?
What principle explains it?
Under what conditions does it apply?
What happens when those conditions are absent?
Answering these questions will broaden an artist’s understanding. In asking and answering these, the painter remains responsible for evaluating their subject and the cause-effect relationships in their painting.
A rule cannot see the subject, account for the lighting and color, judge the painting, or make an artistic choice. The painter has to do those things.
It would not be wise to reject every rule simply because it is a rule. Rather, treat the rule as guidance for producing certain results. Only accept guidance to the extent that it can be understood, tested, and integrated into one’s own judgment. Rules are most valuable when they help an artist ask better questions. They become destructive when they persuade the artist that the questions have already been answered.
