Lately, I have been thinking about a statement that has become increasingly common whenever people discuss or look at works of #art .
I am sure many of us have heard it countless times:
"Art is completely open to interpretation. Everyone can paint whatever they want, and whatever the viewer sees in it is valid. After all, it is art."
I agree with part of this statement, but I strongly disagree with applying it to every aspect of #art .
Let me explain what I mean.
In contemporary art and literary theory, there is a well-known concept called "The Death of the Author" introduced by the French literary theorist Roland Barthes in 1967. In simple terms, this theory challenges the idea that the meaning of a work is entirely determined by its creator's intentions. Instead, it gives the audience an important role in creating and interpreting meaning.
I have no objection to this perspective. In fact, I believe one of the most fascinating aspects of art is that the same artwork can create completely different experiences and meanings for different viewers.
But here is an important question:
Does the freedom of the viewer to interpret an artwork mean that the artist does not need knowledge, skills, or an understanding of the subject?
Think about it this way.
Can we say that an architect is free to construct a building however they wish, without understanding architecture, structural principles, balance, or safety, simply because everyone is free to interpret the building in their own way?
Can we say that a surgeon can perform an operation however they like because every patient may have a different experience of treatment? Shouldn't a doctor understand anatomy, physiology, and the fundamental principles of medicine?
Can a chef simply mix random ingredients without understanding flavors, cooking temperatures, or preparation techniques and expect the result to be a high-quality meal just because everyone has their own taste?
Does a musician need no understanding of rhythm, harmony, musical intervals, or musical structure?
Can a carpenter put pieces of wood together without understanding the material, tools, joints, or proportions and automatically call the result professional craftsmanship?
All these professions involve creativity and freedom, but that freedom exists alongside knowledge and skill, not as a replacement for them.
In my opinion, art is no exception.
I believe everyone has the right to paint, draw, sculpt, and explore their own artistic ideas. Just as everyone can cook or make something out of wood. Nobody needs permission to begin creating art, and no one owns creativity.
However, there is a difference between having the freedom to create and understanding the quality and language of what you create.
Someone who wants to paint should ideally become familiar with the fundamental visual elements: line, shape, form, color, texture, space, tonal values, and composition. They should understand visual balance, how contrast works, how colors influence one another, and how different elements can come together to create a coherent visual structure.
This does not mean following fixed and unchangeable rules. Quite the opposite.
An #artist can break the rules more consciously and creatively when they understand them.
For example, a #painter might deliberately distort facial proportions, ignore perspective, use unrealistic colors, or create an unconventional composition. These can all be valid artistic decisions. But there is a significant difference between consciously breaking a rule and simply not knowing it.
There is another question that has always made me think:
If all artworks are considered equal simply because artistic expression is free and interpretation belongs to the viewer, why do certain artworks hold such different positions in the history of art? Why are some works continuously studied and analyzed, influence artistic movements, and inspire generations of artists?
Why do the works of artists such as Rembrandt, Van Gogh, Cézanne, Picasso, and Käthe Kollwitz continue to be studied and discussed?
Are these differences merely a matter of personal taste?
Certainly not.
Many factors contribute to the evaluation of an artwork, including visual coherence, technical ability, originality, conceptual depth, understanding of the medium, historical influence, and the artist's ability to create a meaningful visual or intellectual experience.
Of course, artistic value cannot be measured solely by technical skill or market price. An #artwork may appear technically simple while being extremely powerful in its concept and artistic expression. Similarly, a high market price does not automatically mean that an artwork has greater artistic quality.
I completely agree that artists should leave room for the audience. A #painter does not have to explain every meaning behind their work or dictate exactly what the viewer should feel. Sometimes, the viewer's interpretation can go far beyond what the artist originally imagined.
But this freedom belongs to the experience and interpretation of the artwork. It should not become an excuse for ignoring learning, knowledge, and artistic development.
At the same time, we should never overlook self-taught artists. Many artists have never received formal academic education, yet through reading, observation, experience, continuous practice, and experimentation, they have developed a profound understanding of art and created remarkable works.
University education is certainly not the only path to learning. What truly matters is the process of learning itself and the development of artistic understanding.
An artist may never have studied academic terminology related to composition or color harmony, yet through years of observation and practice, they may have developed an extraordinary intuitive understanding of these principles.
My concern is not about academic degrees, particular #artistic styles, or loyalty to classical rules. My concern is the tendency to make knowledge and skill seem unimportant in the name of artistic freedom.
I believe we should distinguish between these two statements:
"Everyone is free to create art."
And:
"Everything that is created automatically has the same artistic quality and value."
I completely accept the first statement, but I disagree with the second.
Freedom in art does not mean freedom from knowledge. True artistic freedom becomes much more meaningful when an artist understands what they are doing, why they are making certain choices, and how they can use the language of visual art to express their thoughts and emotions.
Perhaps art has no final boundaries or universally fixed definition. But that does not mean knowledge, experience, skill, and artistic thinking have become irrelevant.
I would genuinely like to hear the opinions of other artists and #art enthusiasts:
Do you also believe that understanding the principles and language of visual art is essential to creating meaningful artwork, or should artistic freedom be defined independently of any knowledge or skill?
I look forward to reading your thoughts and having an honest discussion.