Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 8459460" data-attributes="member: 177">Exactly.Any individual can learn theory they did not know, and find some value in it.&nbsp; But, in the process around here no new theoretical ideas come up.&nbsp; All we have is the conflict between now decades-old theoretical frameworks, and only a couple of them, at that, without anything like a verification process beyond collecting anecdotes.&nbsp; It is like a bunch of fans of cubism are discussing art (okay, really, more like arguing art) with pointillists.&nbsp; Sure, someone can learn a thing or two, but no new way of considering painted artwork comes out of it.&nbsp; So, unless the cubists or pointillists got art completely right on the first go, there's no reason to think that discussion is actually identifying what is important in painting, in general.&nbsp; This is completley in alignment with what I said.&nbsp; So I'm not seeing disagreement here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 8459460, member: 177"] Exactly. Any individual can learn theory they did not know, and find some value in it. But, in the process around here no [I]new theoretical ideas[/I] come up. All we have is the conflict between now decades-old theoretical frameworks, and only a couple of them, at that, without anything like a verification process beyond collecting anecdotes. It is like a bunch of fans of cubism are discussing art (okay, really, more like [I]arguing[/I] art) with pointillists. Sure, someone can learn a thing or two, but no new way of considering painted artwork comes out of it. So, unless the cubists or pointillists got art completely right on the first go, there's no reason to think that discussion is actually identifying what is important in painting, in general. This is completley in alignment with what I said. So I'm not seeing disagreement here. [/QUOTE]

Verification