Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist. - Picasso.
Just now I stumbled on the quote. A nice one.
You know, I always, I mean always, hate the statement "Rules are made to break." What do these people really know about making the rules, anyway? Do they ever really think about purposes, often complicated ones, those underlie the making of rules? Or, do they ever really think about anything?
Having the rules ahead of us is much like having some stranger confronting us with an "hey, you, i love you!" Well, you are given either an "hey, you, i love you too!" or an "hey, you, i don't love you. sorry.", or an "who are you again?". No definite response will be noticed by the time the confrontation started.
Of course, breaking a rule is an option. But what on earth the breaking thing would mean if the rule itself isn't fully understood at the beginning? What really is there to break? Are you sure you're breaking a rule? Or are you just making a shortcut passing your laziness to try understanding things?
If you can take as much as "chaos is the absence of order", why can't you take more on "what's forming an order so that its absence could bring a presence of its opposite called chaos"? How far are you willing to understand the word "opposite" itself here?
"Rules are made to break." So how can you mark it as a complete sentence?