Artistic Capitalization?

It's always bothered me that the standard in English is to capitalize most of the words of titles of works of art, books, songs, but you don't do it for most prepositions, conjunctions, and articles, sometimes. I've always been under the impression that because these are more "function" words, they are less important. But is it the artist who decided that, or were they just adhering to a standard?

It's always so much more obvious that something is intentional when it does not line up with the protocol. Names like bell hooks, when rendered as such, might fire off an alarm in ones head, just the same as when something is written in all majuscules. In those cases, it's pretty clear what the author's intentions were.

So what is one to do with these methods, the ones that coincide with the standard, are they merely the result of an automatic practice, or was it the artists intention? There seems to be a basis for this in the house style of whoever wrote down the name of the work, and I don't see any real reason to adhere to it.

Personally, in my own "house style" I reject complete (or absence of) capitalization of words in most contexts. Even when it's clear of the intention of the author, I find it quite unsightly. There seems to be some precedent for this. Frank Zappa has a song called "five-five-FIVE." There are in fact renderings on different websites with the song listed as Five-Five-Five, Five-five-FIVE, and Five-Five-FIVE. And it wasn't difficult to find those at all, or different examples of each, even moreso than finding renditions as I believe it was intended to be written. For some good information on this song and a bit on the name, go here.