Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8816593" data-attributes="member: 6801228">When I write, I am verbose. That is why it is getting more and more frustrating to try and hold any sort of conversation on this forum. Because I will spent multiple hours making responses, with the thought that I will be able to hold an actual conversation.Then I get buried in strawmen, false accusations, and people demanding that I be silent.It is infuriating.Nothing about my post proposed a binary set of outcomes. You are making that up.The creature being fantastical has nothing to do with the amount of &quot;imagination&quot; and &quot;other descriptive material&quot; I should be forced to consider before judging the art. Unicorns are intensely fantastical creatures, capable of flight, speech, magic, teleportation, having silver blood that grants immortality, unfailing senses that move beyond the physical, ect ect ect. Their design is a horse with a spiral horn. Not exactly something that needs a lot of explanation despite how intensely fantastical and magical they can be portrayed in media.Also, again, this is not a &quot;less representational&quot; art style. I keep repeating it, you keep ignoring it. The art I posted is this one.[ATTACH=full]265523[/ATTACH]You will note, this is not a stained glass window.This is not a cartoon.This is not done in Crystal Cubism style.It is not done in a mosaic styleIt is not done in a futurism style.So, since this is done in a rather realistic style, I don't need to assume that this is &quot;less representational&quot; because... it isn't. It just flatly isn't done in a style that demands intense interpretation of symbolic shapes, that is simplified to reduce detail, or made of a specific material like shards of glass or newspaper clippings. Your insistence that it must be treated as though it is is maddening, and if it continues I will just start insisting that we must treat it like a fully detailed, holographic 3-D model because that is just as accurate as treating it as a cartoon or a stained glass window.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8816593, member: 6801228"] When I write, I am verbose. That is why it is getting more and more frustrating to try and hold any sort of conversation on this forum. Because I will spent multiple hours making responses, with the thought that I will be able to hold an actual conversation. Then I get buried in strawmen, false accusations, and people demanding that I be silent. It is infuriating. Nothing about my post proposed a binary set of outcomes. You are making that up. The creature being fantastical has nothing to do with the amount of "imagination" and "other descriptive material" I should be forced to consider before judging the art. Unicorns are intensely fantastical creatures, capable of flight, speech, magic, teleportation, having silver blood that grants immortality, unfailing senses that move beyond the physical, ect ect ect. Their design is a horse with a spiral horn. Not exactly something that needs a lot of explanation despite how intensely fantastical and magical they can be portrayed in media. Also, again, this is not a "less representational" art style. I keep repeating it, you keep ignoring it. The art I posted is this one. [ATTACH type="full" alt="1667420897666.png"]265523[/ATTACH] You will note, this is not a stained glass window. This is not a cartoon. This is not done in Crystal Cubism style. It is not done in a mosaic style It is not done in a futurism style. So, since this is done in a rather realistic style, I don't need to assume that this is "less representational" because... it isn't. It just flatly isn't done in a style that demands intense interpretation of symbolic shapes, that is simplified to reduce detail, or made of a specific material like shards of glass or newspaper clippings. Your insistence that it must be treated as though it is is maddening, and if it continues I will just start insisting that we must treat it like a fully detailed, holographic 3-D model because that is just as accurate as treating it as a cartoon or a stained glass window. [/QUOTE]

Verification