Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8620347" data-attributes="member: 16814">A lot of these discussions seem to boil down to point of view.&nbsp; Kinda like art.&nbsp; You can climb into art and look at techniques and media and discuss the differences in precise details -- how this technique works to evoke this effect, what the difference is between this and that technique, what you can do with one technique that you cannot do with another, etc.&nbsp; On the other hand, you could be looking at art as an infrequent patron in a museum where you're only looking at a distance to see if you generally like or dislike a particular piece.&nbsp; And here we have these discussions which seem to be about people interested in the techniques vs people that want to talk about what art that they like.&nbsp; The technique people are passionate about sharing how art is made, but lots of people just don't really care if there's a difference between, say, watercolors and oil painting and what you can do with them.&nbsp; To them it's paint, and it's the final conglomerate that has merit or doesn't.&nbsp; To the technique people, liking the final product is really not of interest, because any art has technique that can be analyzed and borrowed to suit purpose.Only, there also seems to be a group that just wants to be clear that what art you like is entirely subjective and therefore not something that can be really discussed, and that since what art you like is subjective, there's no point at all to discussing technique because, ultimately, it doesn't matter, you like what you like, shrug emoticon.&nbsp; This really reads as an attempt to shut down conversations instead of engage with them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8620347, member: 16814"] A lot of these discussions seem to boil down to point of view. Kinda like art. You can climb into art and look at techniques and media and discuss the differences in precise details -- how this technique works to evoke this effect, what the difference is between this and that technique, what you can do with one technique that you cannot do with another, etc. On the other hand, you could be looking at art as an infrequent patron in a museum where you're only looking at a distance to see if you generally like or dislike a particular piece. And here we have these discussions which seem to be about people interested in the techniques vs people that want to talk about what art that they like. The technique people are passionate about sharing how art is made, but lots of people just don't really care if there's a difference between, say, watercolors and oil painting and what you can do with them. To them it's paint, and it's the final conglomerate that has merit or doesn't. To the technique people, liking the final product is really not of interest, because any art has technique that can be analyzed and borrowed to suit purpose. Only, there also seems to be a group that just wants to be clear that what art you like is entirely subjective and therefore not something that can be really discussed, and that since what art you like is subjective, there's no point at all to discussing technique because, ultimately, it doesn't matter, you like what you like, shrug emoticon. This really reads as an attempt to shut down conversations instead of engage with them. [/QUOTE]

Verification