|
|
Renderdog wrote:
>
> It does look like there's not enough people to support discussions of the
> top 20, and it might become repetitive eventually anyway, if there isn't
> enough new blood to carry on the discussions.
I've always wondered why "Art Appreciation" is required course work for people
studying art in school. It seems they go to great lengths to learn how to say
something is beautiful in 5000 words when saying "it's beautiful" will suffice.
Is the quantification of art really that important?
What I am saying is that I don't think that you will find everyone here is into
the discussion of art as much as they are in the creation of art, and for many
people who are into 3D graphics programs they are really more into the technical
thrill of it all. If the disucssions really lead to the promotion of better art
then it serves a purpose. If the discussions are for discussion sake alone they,
to me, serve no purpose. I can easily appreciate art as it is presented without
having to discuss it and I suspect many share my opinion on this.
And for the record, the next time I hear someone say that a red dot painted on
a white background is art I am going to punch them in the nose for being too
stupid to deserve to live.
<runs away>
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|