Perhaps this is as good a time to ask as any--
I've never been able to understand what there is about this sort of imagery that some people find interesting or appealing. This isn't a criticism of it--just a lack of understanding on my part.
( ,
Thu 1 Sep 2011, 7:39,
archived)
done well, it's uniquely expressive.
done poorly, it's just bad.
but it's never, ever cubism.
( ,
Thu 1 Sep 2011, 7:42,
archived)
but it's never, ever cubism.
Maybe that's what I'm missing--
I can see no standard for what is "done well."
( ,
Thu 1 Sep 2011, 7:47,
archived)
it is pretty hard for me to codify too, since it's a personal aesthetic response.
I don't know that there is an objective answer, but you could couch it in use of line, colour, originality.
( ,
Thu 1 Sep 2011, 7:54,
archived)
I don't know that there is an objective answer, but you could couch it in use of line, colour, originality.
but you don't know why?
edit: the line/color thing I relate to totally.
( ,
Thu 1 Sep 2011, 7:58,
archived)
oh--some of us go to school and learn how to describe abstractions
( ,
Thu 1 Sep 2011, 8:04,
archived)
I knew this place was not going to be a fountain of information :)
(question withdrawn without resolution or fanfare)
( ,
Thu 1 Sep 2011, 8:19,
archived)
okay if I put the blunt down just for a second
I think all human knowledge is fallible, thanks to subjective perception, so what we have is a socially negotiated belief system.
What we can express with certainty is our personal preferences, whether we think we know why we like something, or can't explain it at all.
( ,
Thu 1 Sep 2011, 9:39,
archived)
What we can express with certainty is our personal preferences, whether we think we know why we like something, or can't explain it at all.