Why art does not need rules?

Let me add to this that positive art does not need rules? I believe that if the emotion or image or idea evoked is positive then the artwork (from my experience) is needed and useful. Negative art, the type that defiles humans their actions and conversations is very adolescent, that is it may be highly curious and interesting but should never be condoned. An example of this is “snuff films”, they cater to the immature of mind and soul and feed the adrenaline of the pubescent mind and body. Any rebuttals or agreement?

Who determines if something is a work of art?

Is the simple answer posterity?

How to make boring art?

If your motivations in making art are strictly monetary, you might make boring art. If your art is only for decoration in the most superficial sense then you might make boring art. On the other hand when you must make art because it is an addiction that must be fed, with the stimulation of playing or experimenting with media in order to create an image that one has not seen before then boring images are usually dismissed if the artist is sincere. How do you know if the artist is sincere. Well a lot of artists use galleries to verify their existence. Art aficionado’s will pay a premium to purchase authenticated art even to the point where they will except boring art. The Gallery may only want to sell a new piece for your collection even though you find the image distasteful. Buying art from the artist or true representative of the artist is the best choice. The buyer of art must do their homework and verify that the artist and artwork is valid. It may be true that people spend more time researching the price and value of a pair of shoes than an expensive investment like a work of art. The rules of art buying must be the same as buying real estate.  Get a good realtor and research the price of similar pieces of property.

Do you have to be educated to appreciate modern art?

Unfortunately at this moment in time, I believe this to be true. Most buyers of art just want art on their walls for decoration. Meaning they don’t really care, who the artist is and why the artist does the work of art. Art from my experience is  only purchased by the rich and/or educated buyer. Digital art is slowly changing art. Like music today, free copied music is ubiquitous. But people still go to live concerts. Images of many artist may be obtained free from the internet. But, quality printed images of artwork are still bought at land based galleries.

Is painting dead!

Viable form of expression.

Is the act of putting pigment on a wall only an ancient ritual to record an activity? Tatoos are a form of body decoration, but is the ornamentation of the body merely a form of decoration unworthy of being called art? I don’t believe painting is dead; although it’s immediate form of expression has limitations compared to computer images. For example to change the image in paint, while not impossible is limited by time and paint. The computer image can be saved at many levels and changed an infinite number of times. The colors in computer art can be changed by the artist indefinitely.

Is Digital Art a legitimate form of art? And, do galleries want to deal with digital art?

According to my definition of art and many galleries, digital art is a legitimate form of art. Galleries find that patrons don’t see the art as original. This is where provenance is important. Provenance is a document that proves that the piece is original and a limited edition of less than 250 copies or less.