I’ve read over the past couple of pages and find myself generally in agreement with JoeMamma. Not only are there rules, but no one can claim to know all of them, there are so many. Rules are always at play. Lets consider another form of art to explain this.
In music we have Music Theory. There are many successful composers who have never had the benefit of formal music theory training. I will use Michael Jackson as a perfect example. Lack of training doesn’t guarantee failure, nor does receipt of training guarantee success. Still, not everyone is a genius, and for the non genius a few rules can be very helpful. Even Michael Jackson had to have his work checked over by those who did have the theory background.
The point is, there is a reason why certain pieces of music are written in particular key signatures. There are right and wrong ways to write chords. One ‘rule” of music theory is to avoid parallel octaves whenever possible. Another rule is to avoid open 4th and 5ths as they dont produce harmonic tones.
Music theory tells us that in the key of C an E is a leading tone that resolves into F. Also in the key of C a B natural is a leading tone resolving into C.
Further music theory tells us that if a musical phase ends on a leading tone then the phrase will likely be immediately repeated and the second time it will resolve onto a more stable pitch.
Now lets try this leading tone ideal on a song everyone knows. How about the “Happy Birthday” song.
If you will, have a quick little hum to yourself of the Happy Birthday song.
In the first phrase “Happy birthday to you…” the word “you” ends on a leading tone. This leaves the listener with an innate feeling of being unsettled and unfinished. Notice that the phrase is repeated a second time but this time the word “you” ends on a stable pitch called “do” (aka the tone for whom the key signature of the song is based). So the first instance of Happy birthday to you basically ends by asking a question, and the second time we hear the phrase it is like the answer to the previous question. This is all based on solid research into human perception of music. it is foolproof.
Using the rules of music theory, one can write a song that is happy, sad or whatever. The rules help the composer to affect his audience in exactly the way he desires. But as stated, rules can be broken if you are in control and happen to understand how to PROPERLY break the rule. For example, we all know that songs written in a minor key are considered to be more serious and sad. Yet, there are exceptions when rather happy songs are written in a minor key. A good example of this is “God Rest ye Merry Gentlemen.”
As someone stated earlier, it is all based on human nature and tweaked by cultural experience. Native English speakers will tend to evaluate a work of visual art based on the way they read. English speakers tend to read images from left to right. This is a fact, whether an artist knows this or not when he is making his art is anyone’s guess, still these rules are operating at all times whether he intends for them to or not.
Using the rules of music theory computers have been taught how to compose music people will like. Isnt that amazing?!!!!
All Joe is saying is that in the end it isn’t all trial and error. A good render shouldn’t require a visit from the Good Luck Fairy. There ARE rules. Whether or not we choose to focus on the rules is our own choice. And again as I stated earlier, because this is all based on human perception, many of the rules are not even yet known to us, yet they are still operating and affecting our decisions about what we like and don’t like.
Booksbydavid says he spends time with pros and that they seem don’t stand to any rules, but I beg to disagree. Like most people when they get to the level of being professional they have already internalized the rules aka basics. The rules no longer require conscious thought, we follow them automatically. We think of it as being natural, but in fact we have been conditioned over the years.
To me this is a moot argument, JoeMamma is simply taking the mystery out of it all. I like that. I dont like having to rely on luck so applying skill seems like the right option. Skill to me is a set of rules that help me accomplish my goals.
Okay, back to the piano. Need to resolve a phrase in a piece I am writing and I cant decide which way to go with it. I’m just a hummin’ away over here. Dont mind me….....
Well said, Rashad. I think you may had misunderstood a bit of what I was trying to get across, but that’s OK. I was a bit upset when I typed it all. There are many ‘rules’ in music and art. While nothing blatantly untrue has been espoused here, I have to take issue with the word ‘rule’. Of course there are things you need to know to be able to take your art, in whatever medium, to the next level but one point being made in some posts is that if you as an artist don’t know the ‘rules’ you can’t expect to get anywhere. One can know the principles of art without ever having any formal knowledge of them. The principles and elements of art and design are pretty much our instinctual responses to color, line, texture, etc. collected and written down through the ages. Some artists/musicians just know what’s right and what’s not. The implication being made by Joe is that the only way to get ahead is to put my head in a book and memorize the ‘rules’ or else disaster comes. I strongly disagree with that analysis. And as we know, disagreeing with anything Joe says is a personal attack on Joe. Poor Joe.
Rashad, I have known you for quite a while and have been an interested party to, if not active participant in, many lively discussions where you have waxed almost poetic on many topics concerning digital art. I have seen your artwork and watched as delved into the bowels of Bryce to create it. In my book, you are a very knowledgeable and talented artist/technician. While I may not always agree with you, through your eloquent arguments I can see your point as truth and move on. Joe, however, is a different story. He has repeatedly made it known that we here in the Carrara forum are artistic retards with no hope of ever becoming one with artistic universe unless we follow him and do as he says. Any disagreement with what Joe says automatically, in his eyes, becomes a personal attack. He mocks us and belittles us for what he views as our very limited understanding or the greater world of art ala Joe. Joe is an irritant whose obvious knowledge is overshadowed by his poor people skills. In short, Joe is an ass.
What I would most like to see from Joe is his artwork. I want to be impressed. He obviously has access to a wellspring of knowledge, it’s too bad his lack of show sort of mutes his tell. At least for me. I have asked for proof that he actually can do what he says he can and so far all I’ve seen are simple renders any relative beginner could do. Joe implies none of us knows anything about art and how to create it. He implies that what we create is something next to kindergarten art. He also implies that his is the only true path to knowledge. He is pretentious to say the least.
I respect you and your ability, Rashad. I can’t say the same for Joe.
Oh, and good luck on that piano piece. Will we get to hear it when it’s done?:-)