Richard Moquin wrote:
Sorry if I sounded so rash with my observation wrt the rules Robert. They are indeed needed for direction, but as you have so eloquently pointed out, they need to be bent on occasion IOT really transmit the essence of artistic beauty.
Hi Richard (and the rest of AoB)!
My interpretation of was Mr Steven said in his article was that the rules are not even "bent on occasion". For example, the "rule" of "no bar branches" is often (mis)understood as if there should be no bar branches. What that rule really says is "no design elements should stop the visual flow". As for some of the other examples, such as the eye poker, breaks the "eye poker-rule" but is in perfect harmony with the aestethic principle of visual flow. As you can see, the rule is only broken if understood literally but isn't broken if the "why" is understood. Without the added eye poker in Mr Stevens example the visual flow would be impaired because the two areas of foliage would visually become two separate areas. With the eye poker in place the eye has a "stepping stone" that ties the two areas together visually. The other examples mainly deal with the concept of visual counterweights (the knee root, bow shapes trunk and the crossed branches). Again, those rules are also broken if interpreted literally.
Perhaps it is time to rephrase The Rules?