- Dołączono
- 4 Lis 2017
Counterpoint, there's a quote I like for cases like this that goes something along the lines of
"The difference between an artist and a criminal is the Artist knows the laws and chooses to break them."
What this is saying is that a criminal is incapable of following the law - they are either ignorant of the law, or incapable of following the law (they aren't choosing to break the law, they have no choice), or don't have a purpose for why they are breaking the law.
If you want to elevate yourself above being a "criminal", that is someone who mindlessly breaks the law, you have to make a conscious choice to break the "law". It is the polar opposite of being lazy or thoughtless, because you are not doing anything thoughtlessly; you think through every choice.
This is what elevates a Picasso above someone who just randomly scribbles, or puts Dali surealism above lolrandom monkey cheese flailing. Picasso KNOWS about realistic perspective, Picasso is ABLE to draw & paint realistic perspective, and he can articulate WHY he's choosing to toss them right out the damn window.
Dali's Lobster Telephone is another good example. At first glance it appears to be wacky monkey cheese lobster-glued-on-a-telephone. But Dali put thought into this, such placing the lobster such that mouthpiece is directly over the lobster's sex organs.
Rebecca Sugar's advice is very harmful to learning artists for this reason: She knows the rules of art, and is capable of following of following them, so she's able to choose to go off model. (Just like she was able to choose for Edd to be the powerbottom in her Ed, Edd, and Eddy porn she drew before being employed by Cartoon Network, making the same sort of shows for children she drew porn of.)
But the lesson she's giving learners is "you never need to learn to this", meaning these learners will never want to learn to be consistent, and therefore will never have the skill and knowledge to know to when they should chose not to be consistent. She's enabling her animation team to simply be lazy, instead of having to think about why they are choosing to go off-model.
This is why Dobson is an art criminal. He thinks he's trying to make a point by using his fill-bucket art, but he's not. He's just being lazy. Given how long he's been out of school, its possible that's all he can do anymore.
In conclusion, Dobson is simply using any reasoning he can grasp at to inflate his ego.
Ostatnio edytowane:
