When do you think an artist should break the rules of art?

can a work of art be well done but still not be a great work of art? explain your answer.

how do you think the intended audience shapes a work of art? give one example with your answer.

if you were critiquing (judging) this work of art, what principles of art would you say are most important?

why do you think it’s important for artists to consider how critics will view their work?

1. An artist should break the rules of art when their art work does not sustain the rules or principles of art. For example, if an artist's work had only one principle of art being applied to it.

2. A work of art can be well done but can still be not a great work of art, because even if the artist flew across the world from canvas and then back to where they were for paint, if they studied art for years and years, if they taught art as a subject, it doesn't mean their artwork will be as great as Mona Lisa. It doesn't mean their artwork will impress the audience and it doesn't mean their artwork will follow the simple rules of art. It just means that they spend effort and time on something that it simply, an unexplained disaster, if it is so.

3. The intended audience can look at art in different ways, since most people have different opinions on different topics. There is no certain example or answer for this question.

4. The most important principle of art in this artwork is contrast (element of art is color) since this artwork can be described as vibrant and colorful, it has shades and rays of different colors and it is very "eye-brightening".

5. Artist can learn from criticism. Some criticism is not based on opinions but based on simple facts, so artists should consider listening to critics and the things people say about their artworks.

i need