I have officially sparked a debate with just that title. But I stand behind my title and I'll tell you why.

In order to make such a statement, I need more than my own opinion. My opinion is worthless unless I've got evidence to back it up. So here is the following evidence I've collected over the years to support this theory of mine:

Art History Evidence:

Art has always been an evolving sect- continuously being created within a specific time, culture, and society by individuals. Thus, the purpose, techniques, and methods have always been in state of metamorphosis. Much of art's periods were actually a reaction or challenge to the prior period. Mannerism, Surrealism, and Impressionism are just a couple of art movements that challenged the status quo and effectively rendered those rules obsolete through a successful creation of art that was in direct opposition to 'the rules'. It could be said, even, that art hinges itself on challenging and disintegrating any 'rules' that is imposed upon it.

Artist Evidence:

The traditional rules to who could make art were very clear: only white men. We have an entire movement in the United States currently that is attempting to uncover and give due credit to the women and people of color who broke this rule and made art nevertheless. I cannot ignore the fact that this old rule continues to be enforced by specific art institutions. Gender and racial disparity is an alarming problem in our current art industry. However, legally- all persons can now obtain an art education without any interference or discrimination based upon their sex, gender, race, ability, etc. Another rule broken and made obsolete.

Art Medium Evidence:

Mediums have been limited to availability and eventually expanded to perceived quality of medium and materials. The rule of quality was one that was widely challenged. For instance, Michelangelo was given a piece of marble that was awful and given as a rude gesture. But Michelangelo rose to the occasion and created a pretty great statue, David. Artists have challenged this rule of quality ever since. Less and less artists are flocking to craft stores to buy packaged and pre-determined art supplies and using their own materials that are made of various, non-traditional elements. Suddenly, we're seeing sculptures made of ocean trash instead of bronze, paintings made of mud, blood, and makeup instead of oil paint and acrylic paint, movement artists contacting and remaining completely still instead of carefully executed ballet positions, we're seeing ballpoint pens and #2 pencils instead of charcoal, we're seeing chalk art and sticks and spray paint and glitter and so much more. The rules regarding medium have left the building.

Art Space Evidence:

Traditionally, we think of art as being installed within a museum, art gallery, performed in theatres, or high on the ceilings of a famous cathedral. They're still there, too. But art isn't limited to those spaces anymore. Art is appearing digitally, on trains, in fields, on street walls, in self-curated exhibits, on apparel, in hotel ballrooms, on sidewalks, on iPads and apps, and endless other spaces. The rule of 'art can only be shown in these specific places' after permission is another rule that was challenged and made obsolete by artists.

Art Institutions Evidence:

Even art academies, universities, and colleges are losing their ‘rule’ power. An educated and experienced educator will understand that art is boundless, techniques and tools exist, but it is up to the individual and their own creativity to define art for themselves and execute it as such. The outdated, hyper-ego, control-based educators are few and rogue, still attempting to install false parameters within their students’ minds. And let me tell you, it is hilarious to see one of these educators in a debate with a student who understands art properly. It can’t even be considered a debate, it’s merely a student schooling a teacher and explaining how unrealistic and unsupported the educator’s mindset toward art is. What makes art 'good' isn't its creation is strict obedience or dismissal of perceived art 'rules- but rather it's power to make a connection or meaningful engagement with its viewer. Oh, and by the way- sometimes the ‘viewer’ is the maker. Sometimes the engagement is the process, the tangible and intangible work, and even the destruction or ending of the work.

Lastly, specific institutions of art (permission-based or invitation-only) have retained their own sets of rules- but those rules are limited to that specific institution and do not have the power to carry over outside that institution.

I am convinced that rules are no longer applicable to the art world and only show up briefly before an artist or group of artists wipe it out by successfully creating art that opposes the rule(s). While rules still live on in carefully isolated institutions and through the personal perceptions of individuals- there simply aren't universally agreed upon rules for art and, thus, universally imposed boundaries for artists and their art.