/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6943570
That book looks promising. The truth is that I can't talk much about such concepts until I have read the book. I need to reduce ambiguity/clarify ideas: know to what extent my concepts and those of that author coincide. I need to know if my 'biforms' are the same phenomenon treated by that author.

By the way, did you participate in the oc thread? Could you share some of your drawings? I am the author of this thread >>6943409

>>6943624
Your word is redundant and confusing @_@ Let me try to simplify it...

Basically what you are saying is: "I live in a context where '?' action (obeying an arbitrary set of rules) is valued by society and gives me gratification (respect, money), then I will replicate it." That's all.

You draw following a pattern because society says so, not because you 'understand' it.

On the other hand, we 'hard artists' ask ourselves the 'why' of those rules. We do not accept them simply because they are 'hegemonic'. And only when we understand them (and perhaps improve them) do we use them in our art. We are not interested in the pleasure of superficial applause, but in the pleasure of understanding. We observe reality, study it and experiment, trying to get closer to the 'fundamental truth'.

Another thing: why do you assume that we do not have traditional skills? Most of our ideas come from direct drawing/study of nature. Nobody here isolated themselves from the world and invented whimsical ideas. It's a 50/50 (think, observe)

My intention is not to be confrontational (I recognize the good intention of your words) I just want to clarify my perspective.