On the one paw, art in general should not be bound by rules, constrained, limited, or directed into preconceived channels. On the other paw, the rules are usually around for a good reason, in that they are what's known to work in the majority of cases.
In other words it's good to know the "rules" as they are a useful scaffold to begin work from but you shouldn't have any hesitation about breaking them when you find that they are in your way.
That is essentially the point of view that this fellow espoused, before I won him over.
Well I'm afraid I'm going to have to be stubborn. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
Knife-making is an art: The inclusion of a handle is a rule. Most knives have handles because handles work. You can make a knife without a handle, but should not unless you have very powerful reasons why your way is better.
*shrug*
I'm afraid I'm going to have to be stubborn, too.
Knifemaking is not an art, or, at least, is generally not being practiced as an art, in the sense that the word is being used, when one speaks about such things as rules of composition. Knifemaking is generally being practiced as a craft, and the way that you are using the word is referring to the craft.
This is not to demean knifemaking. It is simply to recognize that "Art" is a noun describing a particular catgory of objects, which does not generally include knives. The enterprise of knifemaking, as a craft, is fundamentally different than artistic enterprises.
To be specifc: I'd define "Art" something like this –
objects which successfully use coherent juxtaposition of elements as synergistic means of communication of emotionally and intellectually significant, open ended expressions, which require interpretive involvement from the viewer. That's a loose, imperfect definition, off the top of my head, but close enough.
This does not describe knives.